The Significance of Rossi’s Granted Patent (Ian Walker)

This comment first was posted in this thread by Ian Walker.

Hi All

In reply to telessar [see here]

Actually, I sort of agree on enforceability. 🙂 it may or may not be enforcible but that is not the purpose. The purpose of the first patent is establishing a claim of prior art excluding others from claiming the same. It is the subsequent patents of smaller aspects that will each be the enforcible patents.

Rossi has planted the flag, it is a Granted Patent, a done deal, a root patent where every other case has to take place from that point. An inescapable start point.

This will be a patent war at least as long term and varied as that which characterised the Wright Brothers and Curtis or Edison and Westinghouse or Apple and Erickson. It is going to be about which companies have the most ammunition in terms of multiple patents and the deepest pockets to pay for the lawyers and how long competitors can afford to sit stuck in the courts behind court orders preventing them from selling or d eveloping, paying endless court fines for infringment, while Rossi continues to develop and sell or whether they just have to give up and license from Rossi because it is cheaper.

Rossi’s first patent is part of a Patent Strategy and a textbook example of how to do it in terms of gaming the appeals process.
Kind Regards walker

  • Sanjeev

    AR has more plans it seems.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=885&cpage=14#comment-1112699
    Andrea Rossi
    August 25th, 2015 at 7:46 PM
    John:
    This patent is part of the IP and many other patent applications are
    incoming. I am working on 64 patent applications right now.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Sanjeev

    AR has more plans it seems.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=885&cpage=14#comment-1112699
    Andrea Rossi
    August 25th, 2015 at 7:46 PM
    John:
    This patent is part of the IP and many other patent applications are
    incoming. I am working on 64 patent applications right now.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • bachcole

      That would be 65 patents total. Seems like global thermonuclear patent war and Rossi has already won. (:->)

      • f sedei

        If only we could find a way we can patent the Genius of Rossi?

        • Omega Z

          Are you CRAZY.
          That would require Rossi to charge more for his E-cats to pay you your royalties. Note there are taxes to be paid on that. You always come out on the short end.

          • f sedei

            That is what is called “capitalism”.

  • CuSo4

    **** the blood sucking lawyers – parasites. What do they contribute?

    • Omega Z

      Actually, No one likes a lawyer.

      Until you need one.
      At that point, you want the biggest bloodsucker you can afford.

  • CuSo4

    **** the blood sucking lawyers – parasites. What do they contribute?

    • Omega Z

      Actually, No one likes a lawyer.

      Until you need one.
      At that point, you want the biggest bloodsucker you can afford.

  • bachcole

    Ian fails to mention the significance of the patent as a way of alerting the world that his e-cat works and LENR is real, even if a patent is not actual proof of anything working.

    • Hi all

      In reply to bachcole

      I think WE at this site and others in the community are all aware it does this 😉 but many of us have been pointing this out since the early part of the last Decade, and a few even longer than that.

      Some in the markets have been aware of Rossi since back in 2011 and I wrote about their manoeuvrings as a result. Sifferkoll and myself have been watching what the markets were doing, in reaction to Rossi. We now know that Rossi and certainly others knew that the Patent was to be granted, if you examine the markets at that point you can see massive capital shifts were being prepared around the world as major companies shifted their positions, we all now know what has happened as a result as those major players corrected their market positions, both to place themselves for the shock and to be ready to take advantage of the coming opportunities.

      If you have the analytical skills and experience and contacts, and know how to perform deep web searching and complex boolean searches and write your own search algorithms, or better still write AI to do this for you 😉 Then you can find out what key organisations and individuals are doing. This is what major companies do and what large portions of their back office is for.

      Kind Regards walker

  • Hi all

    Inevitably Rossi’s competitors will refer to Rossi’s patent in order to establish their own patents, those that don’t will be overrun by those that do. This in turn will strengthen this root patent, that is what happens.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Hi all

    Inevitably Rossi’s competitors will refer to Rossi’s patent in order to establish their own patents, those that don’t will be overrun by those that do, including Rossi, who can look at competitors patents, and make his own patent applications, referring to the granted root patent, those competitors that do not refer to this granted patent will loose the precedence of their own patents that they have already applied for unless they adapt and appeal by referring to the granted patent. This in turn will strengthen this root patent, that is what happens.

    Expect several competitors to adapt their patent applications accordingly, so that they too can be granted

    Kind Regards walker

    • telessar

      Hi Walker,

      This really isn’t how patent law works. Rossi may have filed what is called a “continutation” application *before* this latest patent was issued… that would allow him to pursue another patent based on the description of this patent. But these continuations can only patent things that have *already* been described in this first patent. They can’t add any new matter.

      Rossi can’t just file new applications and “refer” to this patent to “establish” anything. The patent is prior art against later filed patents, but very little of what you described in terms of “losing precedence” and “referring to the granted patent” is actually how the law works.

      Best,
      Telessar

  • Hi all

    In reply to bachcole

    I think WE at this site and others in the community are all aware it does this 😉 but many of us have been pointing this out since the early part of the last Decade, and a few even longer than that.

    Some in the markets have been aware of Rossi since back in 2011 and I wrote about their manoeuvrings as a result. Sifferkoll and myself have been watching what the markets were doing, in reaction to Rossi. We now know that Rossi and certainly others knew that the Patent was to be granted, if you examine the markets at that point you can see massive capital shifts were being prepared around the world as major companies shifted their positions, we all now know what has happened as a result as those major players corrected their market positions, both to place themselves for the shock and to be ready to take advantage of the coming opportunities.

    If you have the analytical skills and experience and contacts, and know how to perform deep web searching and complex boolean searches and write your own search algorithms, or better still write AI to do this for you 😉 Then you can find out what key organisations and individuals are doing. This is what major companies do and what large portions of their back office is for.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Jarea1

    Thanks for your analysis Ian. Sifferkohl and you do a great job following the money. I believe that i can know more about the progress of Rossi by following sifferkohl than by reading Rossi directly XD.

    I have basic question. Is this patent an international patent or is it just valid for US?. I know he had a patent only in Italy. Unfortunately, this patent was only valid for Italy.

    Now he has a patent in the US but does it mean that having a patent for US it is also accepted in the rest of the world?
    Could somebody clarify?
    thanks

  • Jarea

    Thanks for your analysis Ian. Sifferkoll and you do a great job following the money. I believe that i can know more about the progress of Rossi by following sifferkoll than by reading Rossi directly XD.

    I have basic question. Is this patent an international patent or is it just valid for US?. I know he had a patent in Italy. Unfortunately, this patent was only valid for Italy.

    Now, he has a patent in the US but does it mean that having a patent for US that it is also accepted in the rest of the world?
    Could somebody clarify it?
    thanks

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Good article thanks. I too am surprised at the sophistication of his strategy. In an earlier post I said Rossi might have a one year head start, I will now change that to two years, which will probably mean billions.

    • Omega Z

      Bernie

      Keep in mind that this patent data is already about 3 years old.
      So even if they should narrow that down to 2 years catching up, Rossi will have progressed by another 2 years of research.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        You could be right.

    • John Littlemist

      Well, to me it looks more like Rossi is 3 months behind, please see Example 1 on page 34 of this document: https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EVM5VUI06909FI4&number=EP12816683&lng=en&npl=false

      • wpj

        Don’t see lithium or LAH there, rather Lithium borate and hydrogen. Overall result may be the same but the components are different. Additionally, you have to remember that in US patent law it is the first to reduce to practice rather than the filing date (as it is in Europe and most other countries).

        I know this very well as I was part of the case which is now taught in the law schools on this topic (originally Jackson v Stampa)…..

        • John Littlemist

          OK, thanks for the info. But I still disagree on Rossi having a 2 year head start. It’s sad that Etiam Inc. is dismissed here on ECW.

          • wpj

            I think that it’s more than people here don’t know who they are! I have never heard of them until you brought this up and I have been following here since the beginning.

            Certainly, lithium borate would be easier to handle than Li/LAH but it is probably offset by the use of hydrogen at high pressure.

          • John Littlemist

            Yes, indeed. ECW has articles about Defkalion, Brillouin, BLP, hot fusion, many more companies and even Steorn. But not a single article about Etiam Inc, which has been DISCUSSED here on ECW for more than 2 years ago.

          • wpj

            Maybe you should suggest it to admin.

          • ecatworld

            There has been quite a bit of discussion here about the Etiam patent application, but I haven’t been able to find anything about the company except the brief information available at their website: http://etiam.fi/index.html

            Their site says “Etiam Ltd. develops and manufactures innovative products for energy production utilizing alternative energy sources.”, but I don’t find anything about LENR products they have made, any experimental data, presentations, personnel, company activity, etc.

            If there is more information out there, I’d be very interested to know.

          • John Littlemist

            “Rossi not first to file a Ni-H-Li LENR patent in US”

            IMO title like that should be enough for a new article.

            Regarding to the experimental data, their patent application (public since May 2013) contains a lot of it. Also the key persons have been discussed here on ECW. And regarding to the LENR products made, Etiam’s marketable LENR product is as existent as Rossi’s.

          • wpj
          • ecatworld

            The Etiam patent application says filing date is Nov 27, 2012 https://www.google.com/patents/EP2783369A2?cl=it

            Rossi’s patent was filed March 14, 2012
            https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/us9115913b1.pdf

          • John Littlemist

            Yes, their European patent application was filed on 2012, but their US patent application was filed on 2011: https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EVM5VUI06909FI4&number=EP12816683&lng=en&npl=false

          • wpj

            Not quite so simple; it looks like 2 patents were consolidated into one

            https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12816683

          • ecatworld
          • John Littlemist

            OK. I didn’t know about the consolidation. But still I don’t think that Rossi has a significant head start, if any.

          • wpj

            http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20150162104.pdf

            This is the published US patent rather than the application. If you go to the claims you will see that claim 4 COULD include LAH. However, claim 4 is dependent on Claim 1, which involves the use of hydrogen gas so the whole thing would have no impact on any of the Rossi work.

          • Hi all

            In reply to John Littlemist on the matter of “… I don’t think that Rossi has a significant head start, if any.”

            It is a granted (First) patent, it needs only one second to establish this. It sets the starting point for any subsequent later (Third) patents that can refer to it and thus establish precedence in prior art over a (Second) patent on the same thing that may have been applied for before Third patent.

            In a neat little trick of patent law. If the Second patent is still in the applied for stage and does not refer the First patent instead trying to establish its own priority but a Third patent comes along with a similar product and does refer to the First patent in order to establish granted status before the Second patent then the Third patent becomes granted and locks out the Second.

            Essentially it gives a boost to the speed of acceptance of those Third patents. So despite the second patent being lodged before the Third, it is the Third that wins. Even better if the originator of the First grant patent has a bunch of subsequent patents in the appeals process and adds clarifications to those that include areas others have in their Second patents they can lock out their competitors by using the first patent to leverage prior art.

            The only defences for Second Patent application holders become:

            1) High speed disclosure to achieve their own patent grant, that often screws up your patent strategy as they are forced to disclose before they are ready to produce and it shortens their patent time. Part of what you do when you set out on the patent path is to try to be in the Apply for stage before you produce so as to maximise your useful granted patent lifespan.

            2) Very expensive legal battles where you are fighting from the legal low ground and where the First Granted patent owner is adding Third patent after patent each being granted because they refer to First Granted Patent to give their legal team more and more ammunition.

            3) Acknowledge the first patent to gain faster granted status. This then strengthens the status of the First Patent.

            I refer you Catch 22. And all because Rossi got their first. It is the classic winner takes all.

            Kind Regards walker

          • wpj

            Don’t think you can say that; I have several patents which were the work of fiction……………. At least in the case of Rossi, there has been the Lugano report and the “reduction to practice” in the 1Mw reactor system.

          • WayneM

            @ecatworld,

            From the same website that you cited above:

            “21.5.2014
            Etiam Ltd. has secured a private funding round for further development of the LENR technology.

            “We are very pleased to close new financing round and grateful to our new financiers. This enables us to continue fascinating and challenging development of the LENR technology targeting on commercial applications,” states Dr. Elers, Chairman of Etiam Ltd.”

            They appear to be deep into LENR.

          • ecatworld

            Thank you, I will try to get in touch with them.

          • wpj
          • John Littlemist

            Dr. Elers is not discussed there, but here is his LinkedIn profile:
            https://fi.linkedin.com/pub/kai-erik-elers-ph-d/56/991/281

          • wpj

            And here is Pekka’s; doesn’t look as if he is doing much in LENR now

            https://www.linkedin.com/pub/pekka-juha-soininen/16/511/68?trk=pub-pbmap

          • SG

            While I share Ian’s enthusiasm for this development, to be clear, there was no appeal that was taken during the examination of this patent, and therefore, no “gaming the appeals process” in this case. There may very well be one or more appeals underway in any of Mr. Rossi’s other pending patents, but hard to tell since he seems to be requesting non-publication where possible.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Good article thanks. I too am surprised at the sophistication of his strategy. In an earlier post I said Rossi might have a one year head start, I will now change that to two years, which will probably mean billions.

    • Omega Z

      Bernie

      Keep in mind that this patent data is already about 3 years old.
      So even if they should narrow that down to 2 years catching up, Rossi will have progressed by another 2 years of research.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        You could be right.

    • John Littlemist

      Well, to me it looks more like Rossi is 3 months behind, please see Example 1 on page 34 of this document: https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EVM5VUI06909FI4&number=EP12816683&lng=en&npl=false

      • wpj

        Don’t see lithium or LAH there, rather Lithium borate and hydrogen. Overall result may be the same but the components are different. Additionally, you have to remember that in US patent law it is the first to reduce to practice rather than the filing date (as it is in Europe and most other countries).

        I know this very well as I was part of the case which is now taught in the law schools on this topic (originally Jackson v Stampa)…..

        • John Littlemist

          OK, thanks for the info. But I still disagree on Rossi having a 2 year head start. It’s sad that Etiam Inc. is dismissed here on ECW.

          • wpj

            I think that it’s more than people here don’t know who they are! I have never heard of them until you brought this up and I have been following here since the beginning.

            Certainly, lithium borate would be easier to handle than Li/LAH but it is probably offset by the use of hydrogen at high pressure.

          • John Littlemist

            Yes, indeed. ECW has articles about Defkalion, Brillouin, BLP, hot fusion, many more companies and even Steorn. But not a single article about Etiam Inc, which has been DISCUSSED here on ECW for more than 2 years ago.

          • wpj

            Maybe you should suggest it to admin.

          • Frank Acland

            There has been quite a bit of discussion here about the Etiam patent application, but I haven’t been able to find anything about the company except the brief information available at their website: http://etiam.fi/index.html

            Their site says “Etiam Ltd. develops and manufactures innovative products for energy production utilizing alternative energy sources.”, but I don’t find anything about LENR products they have made, any experimental data, presentations, personnel, company activity, etc.

            If there is more information out there, I’d be very interested to know.

          • John Littlemist

            “Rossi not first to file a Ni-H-Li LENR patent in US”

            IMO title like that should be enough for a new article.

            Regarding to the experimental data, their patent application (public since May 2013) contains a lot of it. Also the key persons have been discussed here on ECW. And regarding to the LENR products made, Etiam’s marketable LENR product is as existent as Rossi’s.

          • wpj
          • Frank Acland

            The Etiam patent application says filing date is Nov 27, 2012 https://www.google.com/patents/EP2783369A2?cl=it

            Rossi’s patent was filed March 14, 2012
            https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/us9115913b1.pdf

          • John Littlemist

            Yes, their European patent application was filed on 2012, but their US patent application was filed on 2011: https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EVM5VUI06909FI4&number=EP12816683&lng=en&npl=false

          • wpj

            Not quite so simple; it looks like 2 patents were consolidated into one

            https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12816683

          • Frank Acland
          • John Littlemist

            OK. I didn’t know about the consolidation. But still I don’t think that Rossi has a significant head start, if any.

          • wpj

            http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20150162104.pdf

            This is the published US patent rather than the application. If you go to the claims you will see that claim 4 COULD include LAH. However, claim 4 is dependent on Claim 1, which involves the use of hydrogen gas so the whole thing would have no impact on any of the Rossi work.

          • Hi all

            In reply to John Littlemist on the matter of “… I don’t think that Rossi has a significant head start, if any.”

            Only a moment in time is what is needed to be first.

            It is a granted (First) patent, it needs only one second to establish this. It sets the starting point for any subsequent later (Third) patents that can refer to it and thus establish precedence in prior art over a (Second) patent on the same thing that may have been applied for before Third patent.

            In a neat little trick of patent law. If the Second patent is still in the applied for stage and does not refer the First patent instead trying to establish its own priority but a Third patent comes along with a similar product and does refer to the First patent in order to establish granted status before the Second patent then the Third patent becomes granted and essentially, but for very expensive legal cases, locks out the Second patent.

            For the Third Patent holder with granted status before the second. That is all they need to keep the second patent holder locked into an expensive court process for years, and unable to produce.

            Essentially it gives a boost to the speed of acceptance of those Third patents. So despite the second patent being lodged before the Third, it is the Third that wins. Even better if the originator of the First grant patent has a bunch of subsequent patents in the appeals process and adds clarifications to those that include areas others have in their Second patents they can lock out their competitors by using the first patent to leverage prior art.

            The only defences for Second Patent application holders become:

            1) High speed disclosure to achieve their own patent grant, that often screws up your patent strategy as they are forced to disclose before they are ready to produce and it shortens their patent time. Part of what you do when you set out on the patent path is to try to be in the Apply for stage before you produce so as to maximise your useful granted patent lifespan.

            2) Very expensive legal battles where you are fighting from the legal low ground and where the First Granted patent owner is adding Third patent after patent each being granted because they refer to First Granted Patent as adaptation of that Prior art to give their legal team more and more ammunition.

            3) Acknowledge the first patent to gain faster granted status. This then strengthens the status of the First Patent.

            I refer you Catch 22. And all because Rossi got their first. It is the classic winner takes all.

            Kind Regards walker

          • wpj

            Don’t think you can say that; I have several patents which were the work of fiction……………. At least in the case of Rossi, there has been the Lugano report and the “reduction to practice” in the 1Mw reactor system.

          • WayneM

            @ecatworld,

            From the same website that you cited above:

            “21.5.2014
            Etiam Ltd. has secured a private funding round for further development of the LENR technology.

            “We are very pleased to close new financing round and grateful to our new financiers. This enables us to continue fascinating and challenging development of the LENR technology targeting on commercial applications,” states Dr. Elers, Chairman of Etiam Ltd.”

            They appear to be deep into LENR.

          • Frank Acland

            Thank you, I will try to get in touch with them.

          • wpj
          • John Littlemist

            Dr. Elers is not discussed there, but here is his LinkedIn profile:
            https://fi.linkedin.com/pub/kai-erik-elers-ph-d/56/991/281

          • wpj

            And here is Pekka’s; doesn’t look as if he is doing much in LENR now

            https://www.linkedin.com/pub/pekka-juha-soininen/16/511/68?trk=pub-pbmap

        • telessar

          @wpj – This has actually changed as of March 16, 2013! The U.S. is now (mostly) a first-to-file system. (They are actually calling it “first-inventor-to-file,” but it is close to first-to-file)

          It doesn’t matter here because these were all filed before March 16, 2013, (you are totally right about this app) but it is good to keep in mind in the future.

          • wpj

            Thanks- I hadn’t realised this change.

  • Ted-X

    Rossi has not disclosed how to prepare the “porous nickel”. This is the weak point of his application. He may claim that it is in the public domain… but it is not. Personally, I think that the trick is to use cryogenic hammering or cryogenic milling. In the litigation (which will undoutedly follow), the adversaries may argue that the patent was not a total disclosure and try to invalidate it.

    • Freethinker

      You may be right, but I do not think so.

      He likely refer to the process of drying, where heating the Ni particles will redox them which will cause the effect. At around 200C of heating, Ni does not oxidize, but in fact shed oxygen. It the replication community this has become anchored and even Parkhomov gave this advise. As I do replication attempts myself I am right now crafting a micro heater to give 200C in a mini crucible, where I will have the powder to bake for 2-4 hrs. This is what Rossi is talking about(atleast partly I am sure)

    • Oystein Lande

      Actually he is explaining a method to increase Ni porosity in the patent. But he is not including this in the claims section, i.e. Is not trying to protect the pretreatment method.

      And what he states is pure Ni heat treatment to superheat trapped water, which Explodes and creates micro cavities…

  • GreenWin

    Rossi’s patent is significant in reminding people working on hot fusion of 65 years of failure. At a cost to taxpayers of some $250B. A long five years ago Scientific American consensus promised an imminent breakthrough:

    Fusion’s False Dawn Scientific American, April 2010

    “Ignition is close now. Within a year or two the 192 laser beams at the National Ignition Facility (NIF)—the world’s largest and most powerful laser system, a 13-year, [$6-billion] enterprise—will focus their energy onto a pellet no bigger than a peppercorn. Energy from the laser beams will crush the pellet’s core with such force that the hydrogen isotopes inside will fuse together and release energy, an H-bomb in miniature.” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fusions-false-dawn/

    EXCEPT the entire boondoggle was a total FAIL. And remains so five years later. $250B — Not ONE Watt useful energy.

    • Mats002

      Make me a cup of tea for less than $250B ^^

    • NT

      Yep, Idiots with control of a big public purse to suck on…

      • Omega Z

        Are you CRAZY.
        That would require Rossi to charge more for his E-cats to pay you your royalties. Note there are taxes to be paid on that. You always come out on the short end.

  • GreenWin

    Rossi’s patent is significant in reminding people working on hot fusion of 65 years of failure. At a cost to taxpayers of some $250B. A long five years ago Scientific American consensus promised an imminent breakthrough:

    Fusion’s False Dawn Scientific American, April 2010

    “Ignition is close now. Within a year or two the 192 laser beams at the National Ignition Facility (NIF)—the world’s largest and most powerful laser system, a 13-year, [$6-billion] enterprise—will focus their energy onto a pellet no bigger than a peppercorn. Energy from the laser beams will crush the pellet’s core with such force that the hydrogen isotopes inside will fuse together and release energy, an H-bomb in miniature.” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fusions-false-dawn/

    EXCEPT the entire boondoggle was a total FAIL. And remains so five years later. $250B — Not ONE Watt useful energy.

    • Mats002

      Make me a cup of tea for less than $250B ^^

    • NT

      Yep, Idiots with control of a big public purse to suck on…

      I am mad as hell and should rephrase that comment. The scientific workers are not idiots only the higher PTB sucking on our taxpayer purse are the problem…

      • bachcole

        Nope, extremely intelligent people who have wandered down the wrong path and who now have a financial, prestige, and intellectual incentive to maintain the status quo and continue sucking on the public purse.

        And remember, the PTB are listening to the extremely intelligent people described above; the information is travelling both ways. But the good news is that some of the PTB are beginning to notice Rossi and friends.

  • SG

    While I share Ian’s enthusiasm for this development, to be clear, there was no appeal that was taken during the examination of this patent, and therefore, no “gaming the appeals process” in this case. There may very well be one or more appeals underway in any of Mr. Rossi’s other pending patents, but hard to tell since he seems to be requesting non-publication where possible.

  • TheDoctor654

    According to the patent, the energy generation is completely from a lithium/nickel metal hydride chemical reaction. No LENR at all, am I missing something. If not then this is just a large chemical reactor that is not over-unity, when one computes the energy to prepare the nickel fuel.

    • Sanjeev

      I think it does not say “chemical reaction” anywhere nor does it call it nuclear.
      This is deliberate.

    • Obvious

      That’s because it is written on telepathic paper. When I read it, it says 6kW of heat comes out with only periodic stimulus of 1kW going in, for at least 6 months.

    • bachcole

      So are you telling me that a few grams of these substances can chemically burn with so much excess heat for 4 days or 32 days or more than 6 months? Really, I want an answer; does that seem reasonable to you?

      However, I don’t really care what we call it or how it is done; let’s just bring it on.

      • TheDoctor654

        Well, Mr. Rossi may claim what he wishes about consumption of materials, but he certainly does not provide nor is granted any claims regarding LENR.

  • Sanjeev

    Tom Whipple of FCNP covered this news:
    http://fcnp.com/2015/08/27/the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-gets-a-u-s-patent/

    Otherwise there is Pin drop silence from msm on this event !

  • Sanjeev

    Tom Whipple of FCNP covered this news:
    http://fcnp.com/2015/08/27/the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-gets-a-u-s-patent/

    Otherwise there is Pin drop silence from msm on this event !

    • bachcole

      I think that it is still too early to be listening for pin drops. But give it a few weeks, and we will be hearing the thunder of cowardly silence.

  • telessar

    Hi all, this post was originally part of a thread between me and Ian Walker. My response to his post was not included above, but I am posting it here for context. In summary, I like that Ian Walker is enthusiastic about the patent, but I honestly don’t think he has a very strong grasp of patent law:

    ———————-

    Hi Walker –

    It doesn’t really work like that. Patents certainly can be prior art, but so are publications, applications… even uses of the device in public. In general, as soon as an application is published, itis probably either 102(e) or 102(B)(1) prior art as of its filing date. Having an application granted doesn’t change its prior art status – both the application and the patent are prior art.

    It isn’t an “inescapable start point” either. Other patents may be following off of this first one (if Rossi filed a continuation before it was granted), but (1) it is only prior art as to what was described in the specification; and (2) any continuations based on this particular patent will be using the same specification – so you are not going to patent any “smaller aspects” off of this particular patent except as they are already described in the document we have seen.

    Also this is not “gaming the appeals process.” I just looked at the file wrapper for the patent, and there was no appeal involved in this case.

    I appreciate your enthusiasm here, but I don’t really think you have a very strong grasp of patent law – you may not want to make claims about Rossi’s “patent strategy” without doing more research into the nuts and bolts of how patents work.

    As a starting point, if you are interested in seeing what happened during the patent examination process, you can go to “Public PAIR” at the PTO, type in the patent number, and look at the “File Wrapper.” The most interesting things to look at are going to be the “Non-final Rejection” by the examiner and the applicant remarks by Rossi’s lawyer.

    Best,
    Telessar

      • telessar

        Hi Walker –

        I looked at that application a while back, but I had not seen the recent (June) activity. Thanks for posting it – really interesting stuff.

        What is currently going on is that the examiner issued a “Final Rejection” (which doesn’t really mean that much in itself – you just have to pay a fee to keep going).

        Rossi has filed an RCE (so has paid the “Final” fee to continue the
        examination process), but he still has to show that the effect works per
        USPTO policy. The examiner is rejecting the patent application because it is based on exotic physics theories. This is a good example of what would have happened to the most recent application if it had claimed LENR.

        The examiner’s objection and Rossi’s response to the examiner is too long to post here, but it is a really interesting read. The examiner basically has said that the study results Rossi is citing are no good – show me real proof that this works. In response, Rossi goes back through all the experiments.

        Honestly, Rossi has a tough road here – he is probably going to have to have really solid proof that the reaction works before the examiner will accept it.

        If you want to look at the examiner’s arguments and Rossi’s response, you can: 1) Go to http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
        2) Click on the “by application number” radio button
        3) Enter the application number (12/736193) and search
        4) Click the “Image File Wrapper” tab on the patent page

        The “Final Rejection” on 3/12/2015 is the examiners most recent argument.
        The “Applicant Arguments” on 6/12/2015 is Rossi’s reply

        They are pretty interesting documents – it would be neat if someone could download and post the PDFs here.

        But the good news is that Rossi is still trying with that app – we will have to see where it goes.

        Best,
        Telessar

    • SG

      I would like to echo Telessar’s comment. As much as I respect Ian for his past analysis on LENR and money flows, he does not appear to have a strong grasp on patent-related matters. I think it hurts his credibility. Stick with what you know and are good at. Don’t try to speak authoritatively on areas in which you are not well-versed.

  • SG

    I would like to echo Telessar’s comment. As much as I respect Ian for his past analysis on LENR and money flows, he does not appear to have a strong grasp on patent-related matters. I think it hurts his credibility. Stick with what you know and are good at. Don’t try to speak authoritatively on areas in which you are not well-versed.

  • TheDoctor654

    Well, Mr. Rossi may claim what he wishes about consumption of materials, but he certainly does not provide nor is granted any claims regarding LENR.

  • wpj

    Thanks- I hadn’t realised this change.