Rossi did not convince the patent examiner that the LENR process was some other undefined non nuclear process. Finding someone who is skilled in this new LENR art will be impossible. Nuclear physics says that the E-Cat cannot work, so no patent can be issued. Rossi must lay out a completely new LENR technology to replace nuclear physics.
When the TIP2 repost comes out, Rossi can only say that the E-Cat somehow works but Rossi cannot say how it can work. The patent examiner will want a solid believable theory for LENR operation before a patent is granted. How Rossi will educate the patent examiner in that new LENR theory will be interesting to see. I don't think Rossi has a new LENR theory. On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Eric; as I told many times it could be kind of suicidal for > Rossi to give real details - as what he calls catalyst in a patent > description now. He wants priority based on the ignorance of the potential > competition > and NOT a patent. > The first sign of really wanting a patent will be to eliminate that > fantastic (to not tell what I really think) 5000 C. > So he wants to give a bit legal oxygen to this claim and alludes to the > good results of the TIP Report. (we still have to see it). > Peter > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Patrick Ellul <ellulpatr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123564999_3.pdf >>> >> >> In this document an intellectual property law firm requests on Rossi's >> behalf reconsideration of his September 2010 US patent application, making >> several amendments. The 2010 application is here: >> >> http://www.google.com/patents/US20110005506 >> >> Among the amendments is the dropping of claim (8), which had to do with >> the catalyst: >> >> 8. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method >> catalyze materials are used. >> >> >> Presumably a patent application that requires that one both be >> knowledgeable in the art and also have access to a secret catalyst did not >> pass muster with the patent examiner. >> >> Scanning over the original patent application, a number of details caught >> my eye that I had heard about in one or another connection but did not >> recall from where: >> >> - The notion that there is proton capture in nickel. >> - Mention of the boron shielding. >> - Mention of the lead shielding. >> - Mention of the shielding being used to prevent radiation from >> escaping the copper tube. >> >> No doubt some or many of these details have changed in connection with >> more recent iterations of the E-Cat. I'm guessing that it's in Rossi's >> interests to make the minimal changes necessary to the application to keep >> it alive, or otherwise risk having to file a new application and move the >> date of priority forward. For that reason perhaps there has been no >> attempt to remove the parts about proton capture, for example; I assume >> they have since discovered that any proton capture is a minor process if it >> occurs at all, but I could obviously be wrong on this detail. The idea of >> proton capture goes back at least to Piantelli, and it appears to have been >> inherited by Rossi as the default explanation as of the writing of the 2010 >> application. >> >> Just a wild, uninformed guess, but I wonder if this request is a moonshot >> by the patent attorneys to keep the 2010 patent application in play. Rossi >> probably needs to file a new patent application. I'm guessing that a new >> application would look pretty different in its details. >> >> Eric >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
