Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let’s say it is bombarded with fast high energy ions that produce many > defects in the lattice structure of nickel nano-powder. Is the powder > patentable or is the ion processing of the powder. > > > > If the same ion processing is done to copper nano-powder, is a separate > patent needed to protest the IP of the nano-powder for that element or > should the patent be used to protect the ion treatment of all metal > nano-powders? > I believe that depends on who writes the patent, and how good a job they do. There are broad patents and narrow patents. Questions like this will probably launch a thousand lawsuits no matter who wrote the patent. In the discussions between Rossi's patent attorney and the patent office, you see the attorney raising nit-picking narrow objections to Arata's patent, to narrow the scope of it, and reduce the share of royalties that Arata would get. He claims that Arata said this but not that, so his patent application is narrow. For example, as I recall, he said something about "Arata never said it was a *metal* cell, he just said 'a cell.'" I do not recall where I read Rossi's patent attorney's arguments. They are part of the public record. They are revealing. - Jed
