Give me some time. I recommend all here interested in even the possibility of LENR read French, he is an accomplished Canadian and US patent attorney (retired?). He is also apparently familiar with engineering and physics, although I don't know his training in those disciplines. He is quite good at comparative patent laws in WIPO, Canadian, US and EU contexts. Really a "go to" guy in this field. He received some flack from Mitchell Swartz a year or so back for maintaining that one can now get through the "ban" on LENR / CF patents at the USPTO. It appears that French was talking the "status quo" and perhaps Dr. Swartz was talking the status quo ante. Anyway, it is now clear that one can get some examiners to consider CF / LENR, and that some have been granted. The key in my mind is to still avoid using the terms (CF snd / or LENR) that can still trigger the summary rejection argument that CF is "perpetual motion" [ which of course it is not at all, regardless of whether or not it works]. This was the path taken by Lipinski UGC, who claim that their process is neither CF or LENR. Technically they are right, the process is not "cold" and it certainly is not "low energy" or even "lattice enabled".
