The amendments to the European Patent Application can be seen here:
register.epo.org/application?number=EP08873805&lng=en&tab=doclist
It's interesting mostly in that he completely avoids mentioning the catalyst issue, entirely. Just dropping the catalyst from the claim won't get him off the hook for this though, as the catalyst is still mentioned in the description (See page 5), and his public statements are still usable against him.
One interesting thing he's added is that the metal tube must now be a copper metal tube. He uses this to distinguish his device from the prior art, and also indicates that the description stresses that "the metal pair of nickel and copper is used" and "is fundamental for achieving the energy generating reactions".
The only problem is, I can't find anywhere where he "stresses" that the tube must be copper. He mentions the use of cooper in passing a few times, but makes no indication that this is an essential feature. Indeed, at one point, he does the exact opposite, where, on page 4, lines 31-32, he describes the tube as being "preferably, though not exclusively, made of a metal", which implies both that the metal could be any metal, not just copper, and that even a metal tube isn't necessary, implying you could use something like plastic, glass or ceramics. This new insistence that a copper tube is essential to the operation of the system would be considered "new matter", and you're not allowed to add such new matter this late in the game.
There doesn't seem to be anything new filed in the US case, which is US20110005506. It's harder to link directly the the US site, but you can search for that number here:
portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
