Second, the new evidence submitted by Swartz does
not cure the lack of enablement or utility. The new evidence
comprised reports by the Defense Intelligence
Agency (“DIA”), Defense Threat Reduction Agency
(“DTRA”), and other scientific articles."
I assume that refers to the DIA report here:
Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance
That is an important report. People who want to know about cold fusion should read it. However, it does not constitute proof of Swartz's claims, or any specific experimental claims from other researchers. It is a general review. I too would reject this report as proof of Swartz's claims. He needs something much more specific that describes an independent test of his devices, and his claims. I think the court is entirely reasonable demanding this.
I do not reject Swartz's claims and I do not reject the DIA report, but they do not support one-another. They are too far removed in content and focus. Perhaps Swartz submitted this to show that cold fusion itself does exist, which is one of the issues the Patent Office raised. The DIA document does bolster that claim, although it does not establish it. However, it does not bolster the specific claim that Swartz's cold fusion device works. Suppose I were to ask a software vendor: "Does your file compare checksum program work with Japanese filenames?" And the vendor says: "Many programs do work with Japanese nowadays." That would be unhelpful. It would tell me nothing about this particular program. *
* Actual example. And no, it doesn't work with Japanese filenames, although many programs such as Microsoft Word on a U.S. computer does work with them.