I think the assumption must be that Rossi has a device which will work, otherwise there is not much point in this speculation.
If Rossi's device works, I think he will get his patent if the application is properly written and complies with the application requirements. However, that doesn't mean litigation wouldn't follow, but it would likely be Rossi instituting the action to protect his intellectual property. In other words, IF this happens it will likely follow this sequence: 1) Rossi will start selling a product based on "Cold Fusion"/LENR based on a patent application. 2) His device works and everyone and their uncle researches it/ reverse engineers it or developments a revised slightly different alternative. 3) Rossi brings suit against the competition to enforce his patent, and the lawyers have some fun. I think this all happens without a grant of patent from the patent office, but even with one the same thing happens. Ransom > This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based > on an assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a > patent that claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that > patents for perpetual motion machines are impossible. > > However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many > failed cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available. > > My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears > to be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but > if there is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion > should not be claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not > important, if the device clearly has the major claimed use. > > It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still > impossible, but the conditions would have been set up for a legal > challenge to the USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been > granted for electrodes used in cold fusion experiments, in fact, > where the primary claim did not mention excess energy. But subsidiary > claims did. > > It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means "I'm not > a lawyer." But I do have some idea of the legal issues. > > The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The > USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or > protection. If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the > technology, the inventor may still be able to claim the protection of > patent law, in court. > > But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy, > which is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many > times. Maybe he thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud, > maybe, maybe. > > I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well > know things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions > based on less knowledge.... > >
