Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yevgen Barsukov said:
If it is not patentable, it is not an invention. Patent law is specifically designed
in such way as to allow patenting of all inventions,
Click to expand...

You are confused.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis.htm
What is a patent?

A patent protects new inventions and covers how things work, what they do, how they do it, what they are made of and how they are made. It gives the owner the right to prevent others from making, using, importing or selling the invention without permission.

Your invention must:

* be new
* have an inventive step that is not obvious to someone with knowledge and experience in the subject
* be capable of being made or used in some kind of industry
* not be:

a scientific or mathematical discovery, theory or method

a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work

a way of performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business

the presentation of information, or some computer programs

an animal or plant variety

a method of medical treatment or diagnosis

against public policy or morality.

If your invention meets these requirements, you may want to consider applying for a patent.
Click to expand...

If all inventions were patentable, there would be no need for such a description.
 
Yevgen Barsukov said:
If it is not patentable, it is not an invention. Patent law is specifically designed
in such way as to allow patenting of all inventions, and the process you are talking about is to separate inventions from "non-inventions" e.g. from prior knowledge that just happened to be not known to the inventor-to-be (including the prior knowledge that certain things like perpetum mobile's don't work).
Click to expand...

As Nathan says, you appear to be rather confused about what an invention is. Patents cover a limited set of inventions that must have certain characteristics. If an invention is, for example, obvious or illegal, it remains an invention even though you cannot patent it. An invention that doesn't work is still an invention, whether the inventor knows it doesn't work or not.

Tubbythin said:
No we couldn't, else I could patent the wheel and fire.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. If all inventions were patentable, you could simply claim a patent for absolutely anything. It's precisely because many things are not patentable that we don't just rubber stamp all patent claims. Although of course that's exactly one of the common complaints about the patent system, and has in fact led people to patenting things such as the wheel.
 
Cuddles said:
That's exactly my point. If all inventions were patentable, you could simply claim a patent for absolutely anything. It's precisely because many things are not patentable that we don't just rubber stamp all patent claims. Although of course that's exactly one of the common complaints about the patent system, and has in fact led people to patenting things such as the wheel.
Click to expand...

Nice article. I think I mistook what you meant and we are talking at cross purposes. So I'll shut up now.
 
Cuddles said:
That's exactly my point. If all inventions were patentable, you could simply claim a patent for absolutely anything. It's precisely because many things are not patentable that we don't just rubber stamp all patent claims. Although of course that's exactly one of the common complaints about the patent system, and has in fact led people to patenting things such as the wheel.
Click to expand...

It is a confusion of definitions. The common definition of invention from
the dictionary is this:

"a new, useful process, machine, improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship"

If you notice, this definition is identical to the requirement of patent office
for a device that deserves a patent. Which means invention = patentable device.
And otherwise, if something is not patentable, it is NOT an invention,
since it will not fit the above mentioned definition.

Regards,
Yevgen
 
Chronopolitan said:
If his "secret ingredient catalyst" is something not "patentable" (if it's not new), and the rest is just a huge gas cooker, there will be no chance to protect his invention.
So everybody could build one. Even if it works, there will be no chance to get money just from the invention.
Click to expand...


Damnit! I go on vacation and miss a good patent argument!

I'll add something that no one else has mentioned: Even if all the parts of his system are known, it's still possible to get a patent on the new combination of known parts, if that new combination provides a new, useful, and unexpected mode of operation.

A free energy device would be such an unexpected mode of operation, almost by definition. So if it worked, he'd be able to get a patent, even if all the constituent elements had been known prior to his disclosure of the overall system.
 
Horatius said:
Damnit! I go on vacation and miss a good patent argument!

I'll add something that no one else has mentioned: Even if all the parts of his system are known, it's still possible to get a patent on the new combination of known parts, if that new combination provides a new, useful, and unexpected mode of operation.

A free energy device would be such an unexpected mode of operation, almost by definition. So if it worked, he'd be able to get a patent, even if all the constituent elements had been known prior to his disclosure of the overall system.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the US patent office reject all claims for perpetual motion machines by default?
 
Tubbythin said:
Doesn't the US patent office reject all claims for perpetual motion machines by default?
Click to expand...



If they realize it's perpetual motion, yes. But there's ways of writing your application to conceal that fact.


And in this case, they're not even claiming "perpetual motion", they're claiming "low energy nuclear reactions" as a new source of energy - it would be analogous to the first fission reactors. They can (allegedly) produce energy via new nuclear processes that are currently not well-understood. If they could show a working model, and explain how to build more, then they would be entitled to a patent, even if the underlying theory was utterly wrong, or even if they had no underlying theory at all.

In this case, and in all similar cases, where they fall down is that "working model" requirement.


ETA: And, even if the patent office still rejected the application, on the basis of "free energy" being nothing more than a fancy term for "perpetual motion", if the device works, that rejection could be appealed to the courts, who might order a patent to issue.
 
Last edited:
Esowatch has a pretty long article about the claims of Mr. Rossi: (article is in english, apparently a translation of the German version, not sure how current it is)
hxxp://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer
(Please replace the hxxp manually I am not allowed to post live links)
 
Dancing David said:
http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer

Welcome summand!
Click to expand...



Nice bit here:

Patents and patent applications
Drawing from patent application WO 2009/125444 von Rossi

Rossi has applied for a patent for the method.[43][44] The European Patent Office as one of the International Searching Authorities of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) dismissed the patent specification. It criticized the invention was not presented comprehensively and particularly that it was not evident that the described reaction of nickel and hydrogen did in fact generate energy. To quote the report:

As the invention seems, at least at first, to offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories, the disclosure should be detailed enough to prove to a skilled person conversant with mainstream science and technology that the invention is indeed feasible. [...] In the present case, the invention does not provide experimental evidence (nor any firm theoretical basis) which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention. The description is essentially based on general statement and speculations which are not apt to provide a clear and exhaustive technical teaching.[45]
Click to expand...


Read more: http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?ti...Patents_and_patent_applications#ixzz1I5q4QvyQ
Click to expand...


One correction: when acting as an International Searching Authority of the World Intellectual Property Organization, you can't really "dismiss" an application. You only establish an "International Preliminary Report on Patentability" (IPRP), which national patent offices can use as a guide during their own examination. Such a report is usually a good indicator of patentability, but the national offices are not required to agree with it, and in fact, they often don't agree with it.

ETA: here's a better link for finding the IPRP and other documents on this case:

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch....NG&SEARCH_IA=IT2008000532&QUERY=WO2009/125444


Interesting....in the ellipses of that quote from the IPRP, they deleted a sentence that was even more harsh, in my opinion:


This implies, inter alia, the provision of all the data which the skilled person would need to carry out the claimed invention, since such a person, not being able to derive such data from any generally accepted theory, could not be expected to implement the teaching of the invention by trial and error.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
@Horatius:
dismissed the patent specification
Click to expand...

I checked the German text and it says: "wurde die Patentschrift ablehnend beurteilt." which can be translated as "patent application was judged negatively".

Looks like an inaccurate translation to me.
 
summand said:
@Horatius:


I checked the German text and it says: "wurde die Patentschrift ablehnend beurteilt." which can be translated as "patent application was judged negatively".

Looks like an inaccurate translation to me.
Click to expand...



I have no doubt it was judged negatively; my point was, that judgement isn't binding on any national offices. Although I'd bet good money most will use very similar arguments.
 
Yeah, pretty funny, 3 clips, starting with this one: http://www.dilbert.com/2011-03-29/

@Horatius: I just wanted to express that the German version is ambiguous. It is less "dismissive" as the translation. Of course, both do not state that the judgment is not binding which could be counted as an omission. But the article is long enough anyway :)
 
Prof. Bolotov new cold fusion claims

Professor Bolotov is now claiming to have a cold fusion device that takes 5kW in and produces 200kW out.

He also claims that the by product of the reaction is large quantities of palladium and iridium. Both of these are very expensive elements. They both sell for close to a thousand dollars an ounce!

It's in the Peswiki news. I'm not allowed to post links
 
This sounds like the Rossi II. Again, long on claims, short on proof.

EDIT: This one looks even worse. It looks to be fusing zirconium with stuff. But that can't generate energy at all -- it's endoenergetic, since those elements are higher than iron, and a transmutation reaction from a higher-than-iron to another higher-than-iron (increasing Z) element (and palladium is Z=46 vs zirconium at Z=40), is such an endoenergetic process. It takes more energy to overcome the Coulomb force than is gotten out by the nuclear interaction. This I'd give even less hope of working due to that, whereas at least the proposed reactions for Rossi's device could have possibly generated energy, although there's no known physical mechanism by which they could occur at room temp.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom