Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes that seems to be the painful lesson; and given many other failures > not reported - it is very obvious that Rossi may have forfeited any > chance of a valid patent, since he held back on details which have > prohibited those “skilled in the art” from replicating the effect. > Maybe not, for two reasons:
1. The art may be better defined than most people realize. The patent does not have to include details that are known to experts. For example, the Wright brothers patent for the airplane did not mention that the wings are chambered. There were some attempts by Ferber to replicate in France with flat wings. (See the photo on p. 6 of my paper.) 2. There are reports of successful replications, first by Parkhomov and today by a group in Kazakhstan: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2178-Kazakhstan-held-a-successful-replication-with-nickel-hydrogen-systems/ Imagine this scenario: In the coming months several more groups attempt to replicate. Most fail but three succeed. Experts evaluating these three determine that the calorimetry is good. A year from now many others have replicated using the methods of these three successful groups. In this case, the patent office will conclude that the three groups were PHOSITA and the others were not. In that case the patent will be valid. There is no requirement that a patent be easy to replicate. It is not always clear ahead of time who is a PHOSITA. As long as some group, somewhere, can replicate and that replication is considered valid by most experts, even if the experts themselves cannot replicate, the patent will be judged valid. - Jed
