Vo,
He claims there were two additional Patents. Both were likely classified. The published one was largely concerned with the material as a candidate for improved turbine blades. He was employed by the USAF at Wright-Patterson prior to his retirement. Both he and the fellow who went on to GE claimed RTSC.
On the other hand, perhaps it was just another USO. An Unidentified Superconducting Object:).
Mark
From: "Michael Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 19:34:20 -0500 (EST)
This whole thing sounds fishy. First of all, the patent was assigned to the U.S. government and never belonged to this fellow. Second, the patent expired long ago and is in the public domain. Also, the patent mentions *near* superconductivity. So why would he be demanding big bucks and be "difficult to work with" about something he doesn't and never did own?
M.
====================================================
--- On Mon 02/07, Horace Heffner < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: From: Horace Heffner [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:35:45 -0900 Subject: Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago
At 10:39 AM 2/7/5, Mark S Bilk wrote:<br><br>>He's had a number of companies interested in it, but none of them<br>>has met his demand of $10,000,000 up front and a major share of<br>>the profits, without which he won't release any of the material,<br>>although he will allow people to bring their own equipment to<br>>his home and test his samples. The details of the manufacturing<br>>process are not revealed in the patent (which has expired by now).<br><br>A patent must provide enough information that one skilled in the art can<br>obtain the utility of the patent. Failure to reveal such information<br>invalidates the patent, and actually should prevent its granting in the<br>first place if noticed by the examiner. This is now a moot point if the<br>patent expired. In general, you just can't have it both ways. You can't<br>hide some aspect of the method of construction or manufacture that is<br>essential to fully obtaining the utility claimed, and still expect to get a<!
br>patent. A patent is essentially a *full* disclosure made in the public<br>interest, in return for some number of years of a monopoly while the<br>license fees are maintained. There is a duty to describe the best<br>implimentation(s) known at the time.<br><br><br>Regards,<br><br>Horace Heffner <br><br><br>
_______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
