I had included the link to the amended claims in the orginal posting, but
it seems including hyperlinks with a substitute does not work at Vortex.
Here is the
link:
javascript:NewPDFWindow('application?documentId=EUIP5C400118284&number=EP08873805&lng=en&npl=false',
'EUIP5C400118284_EP08873805_en')
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Teslaalset <robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
