Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: The patent examiner will want a solid believable theory for LENR operation > before a patent is granted. >
That is incorrect. The Patent Office never demands a theory. It is a big mistake to present a theory. Read the papers by David French explaining why. The Patent Office normally demands only one thing: A complete description with the best of the inventor's knowledge about how to make the machine. The description must be good enough a that a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) can replicate. In a few cases, such as this one, the Patent Office also demands experimental proof that the device works. In my opinion, this is entirely reasonable in Rossi's case, and in the Swartz's case, which Rossi cites. The first and second ELFORSK tests are proof that the device works. I do not know if they are good enough proof for the Patent Office. In my opinion, the first test would not be good enough. Obviously I have not seen the second test. Theory is NEVER a consideration, unless the inventor makes it a consideration by including it. This weakens the patent because even if the device works, if the theory turns out to be wrong, the patent may be invalid. - Jed
