Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is clear that Rossi has never understood what is going on in this > reaction, which is only slightly different from the earlier devices of > Thermacore (1992) and Mills (2003). > No, experts tell this is quite different from Themacore or Mills. It is powder instead of bulk material. From the point of view of a patent this is a huge & critical difference. I don't know about the physics point of view. Patents are never about physics. They are about function. They are about engineering. (See the papers by David French.) Rossi's patent resembles Arata's. Rossi's own lawyers wrote many responses trying to distinguish it from Arata. These responses were not convincing in my opinion. If the Patent Office decides the two are are similar, that does not mean Rossi does not get a patent. It means people who license the technology have to pay both Rossi and Arata. That's my understanding. This is basically a hybrid of the Ni used by Mills combined with the nanoparticles used by Arata. It does not seem very original when you describe it that way, but it is. No one else thought of doing it. No one else managed to do it so effectively. It may seem like an incremental improvement but it is enough of a leap to merit a patent. Many smaller improvements in things like semiconductors have been granted patents. The specific, hands-on details of how you make the gadget and how you operate it are tremendously important in a patent. That is where Rossi is far ahead of Arata. Unfortunately for Rossi, those details are not in the patent, so the patent is invalid. As far as I know that's how it works. - Jed
