What you say, Jed, and what David French has said, is absolutely true: the theory has no real place in the patent and can limit the scope or completely invalidate the claims. On the other hand, if you don't have a good theory for how the invention works, it is nearly impossible to write claims having sufficient breadth to protect your invention and a business based upon it.
The validated understanding generally available today for Ni-H LENR is insufficient to write broad protective claims. Tomorrow, when that understanding becomes available, competitors may easily find a workaround to a claim written today. There is also such wide speculation on the mechanism that it puts much of the possible mechanisms into the category of prior art for any patents written today. That is why I believe that there will be no controlling patent on basic foundations (the chemistry) of Ni-H LENR. I think Rossi is pursuing a course needed to build a business - he is right to try. But I believe that even if his patent is granted, it will be useless in protecting his product. I also agree that Rossi has failed to completely disclose his invention. He is in a real catch-22. Bob Higgins On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil Axil <[email protected]> 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 > >
