Roarty, Francis X <[email protected]> wrote: WOW! Am I reading this patent right? Rossi’s patent seems to bet everything > on Ni62 to cu as THE important reaction. >
I believe he can be totally wrong about his theory of operation and yet still get a patent if it can be shown that this was the best implementation he knew of. HOWEVER, that does not appear to be the case. I do not know how the detailed rules work, but this application was made in January 2011. Let me assume (perhaps mistakenly) that he had to show the best implementation as of that date, not the date the patent was originally written. Right there in the Abstract it says: ". . . a metal tube filled by a nickel powder and heated to a high temperature. preferably, though not necessary, from 150 to 5000 C . . ." It seems to me that "150 to 5000 C" effectively means "any temperature you like; temperature does not matter." Yet before Jan. 2011 in his blog Rossi was saying that the best temperature is 600 deg C. I believe this would fail the "best mode requirement": http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2165.htm Someone who knows about patents told me that inventors and corporations do their best to fulfill the letter of the law while subverting the intent, by making patents as vague as they can, and as difficult to replicate from as they can. They also try to make the patent broad so that, for example in this case, if the best temperature turns out to be 400 deg C or 900 deg C, the patent will still cover it. In this case, Rossi's patent attorney may have been too cute, playing it too close to the line. I cannot judge. - Jed
