Rossi’s patent application WO2009125444 had a major claim change on April
15, 2013 (initiated in the European patent family member EP2259998),
stating that the applied Nickel SHALL be Ni62. The discussed matter in this
discussion thread could well be tightly related to the amended claims
<javascript:NewPDFWindow('application?documentId=EUIP5C400118284&number=EP08873805&lng=en&npl=false',
'EUIP5C400118284_EP08873805_en')>.

In recent granted patent, Rossi indicates that Nickel acts as catalyst, not
mentioning Ni62 specifically. Maybe this should be combined with Rossi’s
amended claims of WO2009125444

Rob Woudenberg


On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> *From:* Eric Walker
>
>
>
> Ø  I do not assume anything at this point about what Industrial Heat knew
> or didn't know in connection with Rossi's preparation for the Lugano test.
>
>
>
> The patent in question is not in their name, so this doesn’t relate to
> them very much.
>
>
>
> Given the amount of money reportedly involved in the E-Cat licensing,
> there is a fair chance that IH was offered the patent rights as assignee -
> but refused, suspecting that this kind of problem would arise. Thus, IH
> appear to have taken a completely different approach in their own filing -
> and they have steered clear of this isotope issue.
>
>
>
> An interesting point is this regard is China, since IH has strong
> connections. It would be interesting to look at the Chinese patent filings
> to see what IH did file over there.
>
>
>
> The Chinese market for LENR could easily be larger than the US market –
> and possibly by a factor of 10 times, given the larger population and
> growing desire to cut down on dirty coal, and given there is no competition
> or interference from BIG OIL/ OPEC.
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Walker
>
>
>
> Intentionally fiddling around with the nickel isotopes without having an
> operational reason to do so strikes me as active sabotage of the ash assay,
> rather than passive standing back and allowing the Lugano team to
> concluding what they will.  So I have a hard time concluding anything but
> subterfuge in connection with this specific detail of the Lugano test if
> Bob's scenario is what occurred.  It is possible that there is a similar,
> but more benign, scenario that actually transpired.
>
>
>
> I'm personally holding out for an active role for the nickel, though.  :)
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> Don’t forget that the Lugano report, containing the fallacious isotope
> data - was apparently submitted directly to the patent office as
> documentation for obtaining the IP. This detail was mentioned in AR’s
> blog, IIRC. It is probably one reason that Rossi got the expedited grant
> (in addition to age, which now allows an expedited process).
>
> That is where the real problem lies. See  “Manual of Patent Examining
> Procedure” Section 2016 on Fraud. This could be a costly problem which
> has repercussions far beyond the original filing. However, the USPTO does
> not do this kind of investigation – it will only come up in a challenge,
> and must be proved by the opposing party – which could be Piantelli.
>
> Thus us was a STUPID strategy to go to court with Piantelli so early. With
> “discovery” (the legal procedure) the truth about the isotopes could come
> out very soon.
>
>
>

Reply via email to