On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:58 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 > > The patent office makes decisions which respect the laws of thermodynamics so it is the office which has a general theory of how everything is suppose to work. If an applicant submits a device whose operation is consistent with those laws then there is no need for the applicant to provide a theory. However, if an applicant has a device which actually works by violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the only thing the applicant can say about how it works is that it violates the 2nd law then they should not approach the patent office until they have a detailed theory of how it is able violate the 2nd law. Harry
