Rossi’s EPO Patent Denied

Mr. Andrea Rossi given 4 months by the EPO to fix his patent or it will become abandoned.

Everyone following the free energy and CF/LENR patents through the systems, knew that Rossi’s EPO and USPTO patents were going to be denied.  This first rejection is similar to the first non-final rejection at the USPTO.  The problem with the Rossi patent is that it can not be fixed.  There is only so many things Rossi could  do to fix it.  The problem is in the claims 1-10 and the description.  Also there is too much prior art.

Let me give you one clear and good example.

Rossi claims in his patent that the process that creates the excess heat is transmutation of Nickle and/or copper.  Rossi claims that it is the gamma rays that produce the heat, and these gamma rays are created by the transmutation process. Rossi can NOT now go and claim it is some other kind of process that is creating the heat.  All he can do now is provide more proof of how the gamma rays and the transmutation is providing the heat.

Let us give another clear example:

Much has been made of the fact that Rossi claims to use powder.  Many have said that this is what Rossi “brought to the table.” That the powder part is what was new and different.  so let us look at that a little more closely.   The EPO said this about that subject:

The term ‘even of nanometric dimensions’ used in claims 1 and 7 is vague and unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of said claim unclear (Article 84 EPC).

Nanometric dimensions cover a wide range of average dimensions of particles; by extension any powder will have nanometric dimensions. More than that, it is unclear what is the meaning of the word ‘even’ in this context.

An unclear feature ‘even of nanometric dimensions’ cannot help to distinguish the subject matter of a claim from the prior art, with consequences on the novelty of the claims, see §5 below.

And again we read speaking of prior art:

Document 01 discloses a method of generating heat using a hydrogen condensate, wherein the hydrogen condensate comprises metal nano – ultrafine particles containing a plurality of metal atoms and a plurality of hydrogen isotope atoms solid – dissolved among the plurality of metal atoms.

The apparatus comprising the powder metal is a reactor furnace suitable to be used in the experimental conditions of 01 i.e. to withstand high pressures and high temperatures. The experimental conditions of 01 are experimental conditions widely met in chemical engineering (for example in hydrocarbon reforming, in oxidation processes, etc) and the use of metal tubes for carrying out exothermal reactions is industrially employed on a large scale. Therefore 01 implicitly discloses the use of metal tubes as reaction furnaces.

And people who claim Rossi is using some kind of ultrasonic or electromagnetic waves look at this prior art:

In the process of 01, by applying an ultrasonic wave [0064], the temperature of the system is raised to very high values, the outer wall temperature being 250°C (Figure 4, [0073]. 01 discloses that besides microwave heating, the energy might be generated based on high pressure, discharge, etc [0014].

And more on prior art:

E1 discloses a method for carrying out an exothermal reaction between nickel and hydrogen ( examples 1, 2, 4 ) comprising the steps of: providing a metal tube (2); filling the metal tube with a nickel powder (page 13, lines 28-29, claim 33), heating the nickel powder to a high temperature (claim 1, T greater that Debye temperature, which for Nickel is 167°C) and injecting a pressurized hydrogen gas (claim 11 + 12 ,page 11, lines 7-12), into the metal tube to create a high temperature and pressure hydrogen gas saturated environment, with alleged generation of energy.
It follows that the subject-matter of claims 1, 3-4 and 7 is not new in the sense of Article 54(1) and (2) EPC.

And we find the conclusion just about sums up our thoughts as well:

It is not at present apparent which part of the application could serve as a basis for a new, allowable claim. Should the applicant nevertheless regard some particular matter as patentable, an independent claim should be filed taking account of Rule 43 EPC. The applicant should also indicate how the subject-matter of the new claim differs from the state of the art and the significance thereof.

Rossi wants more patent protection sure, we guess, but maybe not, in Rossi’s investment scam obtaining a EPO or USPTO patent would actually hurt his scam and swindle.  Just like his thermoelectric scam, Rossi only received his patent after the project was basically over.  Rossi learned in the thermoelectric scam that the scam is over as soon as you produce devices that do not work.

That is why Rossi does not need patents or working devices at 3rd party locations.  The first time Rossi lets an e-Cat go completely out of his control his scam is over.  Jed a major Rossi supporter knows this, and all of the scientists and engineers do also, that is why I wonder why they still support Rossi.  Every day that people continue to support Rossi is a day wasted to get real CF/LENR off the ground and out into peoples homes.

Another good article by Mr. Wright about the patents and certification is this one here on this website:

No Certifications NoTheory NoPatent NoEcat

They were too vague, had unrealistic claims, they were plagiarized, and they just basically were junk for Rossi to use in his scams and swindles.

Mr. Rossi is always making promises and telling everyone what he is going to do “as soon as the international patent is issued.”

Well, you can take all of those promises and throw them in the trash can will all of his other lies and falsehoods.

As we published on August 29, 2012, more 3rd party papers were filed concerning this patent application.

We knew that the first review was in progress and we were just waiting for the results.  Well the first review was sent out on October 19, 2012 with a complete rejection of Mr. Rossi’s EPO Patent application.

We said in August:

“Think these documents will help Mr. Rossi get his patent application approved?  We don’t.  The only way Mr. Rossi would get his patent approved is if he provides a working device to the patent office that they can verify and then he would have to make major changes to his patent application that is not allowed in patent law.”

In a 2 page document dated 19.10.2012 and sent to Leonardo Corporation, (I wonder if the EPO knows about “the other” Leonardo Corporation”?),  the EPO said the following:

Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC

“The examination of the above-identified application has revealed that it does not meet the requirements of the European Patent Convention for the reasons enclosed herewith. If the deficiencies indicated are not rectified the application may be refused pursuant to Article 97(2) EPC.

You are invited to file your observations and insofar as the deficiencies are such as to be rectifiable, to correct the indicated deficiencies within a period of 4 months.”

 And also:

“Failure to comply with this invitation in due time will result in the application being deemed to be withdrawn (Art. 94(4) EPC).
The notification of this communication starts the 24-month period according to Rule 36(1)(a) EPC for filing a voluntary divisional application divided from this application or from any sequential application.”

Now you notice that in the last statement Mr. Rossi can, if he so chooses, separate out any part/s he thinks is truly unique – filing a “voluntary divisional application” within 24 months.

Now since Rossi’s scam is an investor scam, any prolonging of the inevitable will allow him to scam more money, if he isn’t in jail before then.  So on that note we predict he will do that because it can prolong the final decision on the EPO patent for up to about 30 more months.

Just what the CF/LENR community needs, right?

The other 6 page document issued the same day was an analysis of why the patent application was rejected.  Some highlights:

The examination was based on:

  • Description, Pages 1-15 as annexed to the Int. Prel. Examination Report
  • Claims, Numbers 1-10 filed with entry into the regional phase before the EPO
  • Drawings, Sheets 1/4-414 as annexed to the Int. Prel. Examination Report

Reference is made to the following documents:

  • 01: EP-A-1 551 032 (OSAKA IND PROMOTION ORG [JP] ARATA YOSHIAKI [JP]) 6 July 2005 (2005-07-06)
  • 02: E. CAMPARI, S. FOCARDI, V. GABBANI, V. MONTALBANO, F. PIANTELLI, S. VERONESI: “Overview of H_Ni systems: old experiments and new setup” 5TH ASTI WORKSHOP ON ANOMALIES IN HYDROGEN-DEUTERIUM LOADED METALS, ASTI, ITALY, 2004, XP002517911
  • 03: S. FOCARDI, V. GABBANI, V. MONTALBANO, F. PIANTELLI, S. VERONESI: “Evidence of Electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems” 11TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE 2004, MARSEILLE, FRANCE, 2004, XP002517912
  • 04: CERRON-ZEBALLOS E ET AL: “INVESTIGATION OF ANOMALOUS HEAT PRODUCTION IN NI-H SYSTEMS” SOCIETA ITALIANA 01 FISICA, NUOVO CIMENTO A, EDITRICE COMPOSITORI, BOLOGNA, IT, vol. 109A, no. 12, 1 December 1996 (1996-12-01), pages 1645-1654, XP0081 03248 ISSN: 0369-3546

Another interesting comment by the EPO was this:

Third party observations

  • 1.1 The third-party observations received on 12.05.2011 pursuant to Art. 115 EPC; in particular document: E 1 W095/2081 6 call into question the patentability of the subject-matter claimed for the reasons given below. Thus, document E1 will be taken into account in the proceedings (Guidelines E-V, 3) and the numbering will be adhered to in the
    rest of the procedure.
  • 1.2 Other third-party observations have been taken into account.

And as expected the EPO says – prove your claims!  Read these statements:

The application does not meet the requirements of Article 83 EPC as the description does not disclose in a manner sufficiently clear the invention.

In the description it is claimed that the reaction of hydrogen with nickel produces copper (description page 5 lines 14-30) and is generating energy.

However, there is no explicit evidence of copper and energy generation as a result of a nuclear reaction neither in the application as filed nor in the Supplementary Technical Information (STIN) provided by the applicant with letters from 10.10.2011 and 10.11.2011.

The more an invention contradicts previously accepted technical wisdom, the greater the amount of technical information and explanation is required in the application to enable the invention to be carried out by the skilled person. At present cold fusion, which is the basic explanation given in the description for generating energy is not accepted as mainstream science and technology.

Relevant for the present invention is 04, which is reporting an independent experiment between Nickel (as a rod) and hydrogen, where no heat generation could be put into evidence, which would result as a fusion process between Nickel atom and a proton, with generation of copper. 04 however gives an explanation for a certain amount of energy created as being the standard absorption heat which is generated when hydrogen is absorbed by a metal/metal alloy.

The disclosure of the claimed invention is considered sufficiently clear and complete if it provides information which is sufficient to allow the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art without undue experimentation. 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 trail and error.

In the present case, the invention does not provide evidence which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention. The description is essentially based on speculations which are not apt to provide a clear and exhaustive technical teaching.

While is it true that the STIN provided by the applicant apparently show a heating process, no evidence is provided that the temperature rise is caused by a nuclear reaction as from the description. In addition, in the STIN dated 10.10.2011 it is reported that the process takes place ‘in the presence of unknown catalysts’. No information on the catalyst material from the tube is provided in the description as filed.

We could go on and quote more, but why kick a guy when he is down?

The only question for the CF/LENR community is when are you going to force Rossi to a true independent 3rd party test of one of his devices?

Until that time Rossi is just going to keep dragging the field through the mud.  As if it didn’t have its own problems enough as it is.

If you are a player in the CF/LENR field at the very least you should be publicly calling for a true independent 3rd party test or publicly distancing yourself from Rossi and his partners in his scams and swindles.

The two documents will be added below the signature. Just scroll on down.

Joy & Peace
Gary Wright
October 29, 2012

First 2 page document – the notice of rejection:

 

The second 6 page document – the reasons for the rejection:

 

THE END

˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃

Comments are closed.