LENR Patents, Dr. Schwarz and the USPTO.
-
-
A possibly instructive example from another technology rich area of innovation: Genetic engineering patents used to be "easy", before whole genomes of many crop plants and model vertebrates were "fully" sequenced bginning in the late 90s. Before about 1990, few if any patent examiners had the basic skills to understand the relevant tools and technologies: "Molecular Biology" that is, Cloning / DNA / RNA / immunology / PCR / molecular phylogeny / virology / bio-informatics and so on. Back then, virtually no one at the USPTO had hands-on experience with any aspect of the then very new processes involved. By contrast, now, there are many, many "MolBio" technicians turned PhD or JD or DPh or MBA/biologist or engineer/MD etc who have such knowledge. Innovations over the decades have refined techniques as "packages" and devices now allow "plug and play"... so a genetic engineering patent is often now only refining some aspect of that tech "at the edges", so to speak. Thus since about 2001 and ever more to the present, genes themselves have become much more controversial and again questioned as representing any form of patentable technology. Remember the 1970s role of gene transfer in overturning the supremacy of the old Patent, Trademark and Law of the Sea appeals court in the US. In a decision not long ago, the Supremes ruled that DNA sequence per se was not patentable, or subject to IP protection (copyright), but foolishly they decided that RNA, as mRNA, rRNA, anti-sense RNA, iRNA or as other forms of artificial AND natural regulatory RNA was still eligible. Apparently, the Supremes goal was (with no expertise in the disciplines affected) to marginally disenfranchise individual inventors in that major and burgeoning bio-medical area, but by contrast to massively and prejudicially reward a particular genre of biomedical research. That is, the focus has shifted from motivating inventors as individuals, now to rewarding corporations whose efforts push that particular 'selected' direction. A path already seen likely to be very dangerous by many, and by now, yet another rather myopic tendency to allow "tilting the game table" at an incredibly persistent and steep angle.
I used to believe, just as some here have written, that "there are too many CF theories". Now, I believe there may be only a few GOOD theories, possibly too few. Thus for me, anyway, it is absolutely essential that there be basic research done in conjunction with theory development-- that is the only way to weed out bad theories. That is in preference to rhetorical assertions, and sui generis argument from comfortable dogma. To have didactically declared "impossibility" in some cases now appears just wrong, particularly if it is based on standard models from collisional physics that seemingly still predate and seem uninformed by the Enewetok disaster, predate condensed matter physics, predate solid state theory in many cases, predate nuclear catalysis (one way of describing muonic fusion), predate McKubre's excellent evidence (re)confirming F-P AHE.To Mitchell Swartz' credit, he offers theory, or at least he confidently inspired me to believe he "sees" and understands what is happening enough to drive innovation in his own devices....
Now that the field (for me: Lowered Activation Energy N R, LAENR) has attracted some new and skilled theorists, but frankly many younger theorists seem far removed from the needed "hands on" engineering development. Their theories can be so specialized as to be daunting for even the most skilled constructors and empirical analysts, and unfortunately far away from allowing the requisite "falsifiability", being necessary to advance experimental hypothesis testing.
Theorists might note that deep physics may well need a GUT that is broader, not deeper.
-
So is he the person behind that site? I check in on Cold Fusion Times often. Occasionally it has something there other than rants against the USPTO. Funny to read though. We have some real characters in LENR.
-
-
AFAIK, it's all his doing.
Yes, I think so.
-
Regarding patents, see the memo from Mr. Cage, who has a Dickensian name.
-
Regarding Mitchell Swartz and the USPTO, I see two possibilities:
A. The patent office was right. His patent applications do not enable one of ordinary skill to make and use the invention. That does not necessarily mean that he does not have a valuable invention. He may have intentionally or unintentionally left out something needed to make it work. It may require expertise, procedures, special materials, or conditions that are critical but not understood. In this case, he should figure out what is missing, then file a patent with the missing step or ingredient included. Then others will need to include the missing piece and his new patent will be valid and establish his priority.
B. The patent office was wrong and the patent(s) should have been granted. In this case, his applications are still valuable to him because they prevent others from patenting those devices, in effect establishing his "freedom to operate." At this stage, with 0% of the market served by LENR, there is no chance that a competitor can take away the whole market from him. He is free to make his millions and let others do the same, even if they make devices using his ideas. But if his patent applications were really complete, original breakthroughs in LENR, I would have expected this group to be full of discussion of replications by now.
In my experience, inventors value the idea way too much compared to the hard work of converting their ideas into real products. This over-protection of ideas is sometimes called "inventor's syndrome." Very few get rich by selling the idea instead of a product based on the idea.
At this point, with no LENR products for sale, someone could make a fortune on a simple product like a brick that stays warm with no external fuel. Later, products will need to be much more sophisticated to have a chance in the market. You will need a LENR power pack with optimal power and energy density for your (flying) car and meeting a long list of government regulations. Every step of going from the hot brick to the flying car will require incremental inventions and every one of those can be patented. In the early days of computers, a single guy like Woz could do the whole design and sell something with very limited capability. He did not need strong patents on his first machines because there was no competition yet. Now, you need huge teams and licenses to hundreds of patents to design the multi-billion-transistor systems-on-chip needed for any cell phone or computer.
-
An interesting replication of our work by the team of Biosearch LLC:
They succeed to light a LED. Its is a modest amount of energy, in the microwatt range, but it is energy, not excess energy.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9472812B2/en?oq=US++9.472%2c812+B2
Surprisingly, these two patents are not classified in the prior art:
https://patents.google.com/pat…=Fabrice+David&country=FR
https://patents.google.com/pat…=Fabrice+David&country=FR
The explanation of this fact (the non-quotation of my old prior art patents as relevant) is undoubtedly because this patent is declared as a "fuel cell". I suppose it is to circumvent the resistance of the US patent office that usually rejects any patent that explicitly refers to the "Cold Fusion".
I do not agree with the scientific explanations given by the signatories of this patent, but I am happy to see our results with John Giles confirmed by another team.
It is a valuable step in the right direction.
-
Quote
I wonder what Hagelstein thinks? I noticed he has started doing his own experiments. Maybe he was tired of waiting for Mitchell to come through also
My point was simply that people who just started their own experiments and those who have not come through should not be teaching a formal class about the experiment that did not come through or something they recently started and do not have replicated results for. Predictably, Jed objected.
I have yet to hear of anyone who took Swartz's class and produced their own credible working LENR device.
-
In David French's podcast on CFN: David French on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast (#008)
he claimed the USPTO had indicated to him 4 years ago, that they would grant an LENR patent if the inventor proves it works. From what I read of Swartz's argument, he said many things, but provided no proof other than his own results, and general LENR lore to support his technology.
David French and other experts in patent law have often told me that you should never include theory in a patent. Theory is a disadvantage with no redeeming benefits. If the theory is wrong, the patent may be invalid. Whereas if there is no theory, the patent will be just as strong as it would be with one. You cannot patent "a force of nature," which I gather means a law of physics or a theory.
The problem there, and a problem that David French may not be mentioning: So called "Pioneer patents". These are very rare, but likewise might only get the grant of monopoly only by quite strict adherence to protocol. In a truly pioneer patent, citation of the theory may be essential (that is why I cited Gould). The reason is simple: the examiners very likely have no idea of the underlying physics, chemistry, biology, QED etc. Hence the necessity in those very rare "pioneer" patents of presenting the theory, and if no theory truly applies, then at least a coherent new theory can wow the examiner enough that she/he can say later to the courts "they presented apparently coherent theory supporting their application and claims". After all the fundamental motive of a patent system is "full disclosure" and the rationale should be that it accelerates the development of new technology.
Lipinskis may have harmed / or slowed their short term prospects.... but the long term might be quite a different story.
Gould shows us how extraordinary such pioneer patent grants are, in every way, violating all the rules and procedures, yielding huge revenues, while dragging down large successful, mature implementors of technology such as once leader Spectraphysics and eventually all the rest.... perhaps assuring that a "Gould v." can never be relived. But, don't count on the Supremes in this regard, they have deeply surprised the corporate "handlers', the "Nation", the "public" and the World.... many times before.
I imagine many of us have seen David French apparently knowledgeably lecturing on the ostensible "post SAWS" view re: the USPTO. But, in one such lecture at some meeting (at the 2013 ICCF ?) it is certainly Mitch's voice and his attempt to describe, in the background, off-camera. Mitchell Swarz there attempts to offer up strong personal counter evidentiary claims to dispute directly the nuances in "Practice and Procedure" that David French attests as the USPTO's new "reform" modification. Mitch there is, IMHO, unfortunately effectively cut off by the skilled rhetoric and misdirection of French, esq.
At least it is a good example of one reason to have an attorney. And certainly when a few $trillion or so, might be at stake.
Last I knew, many PTO examiners are ad hoc "volunteers" and now come from various, thought to be relevant backgrounds, and hence may not be completely up on Langmuir, Schwinger, Boehme, Pauli, Bose and surely not up on the latest from P. Hagelstein, F. David, R. Mills, G. Egely, Mel Miles and so on.
-
-
I have yet to hear of anyone who took Swartz's class and...
^ A statement made all the more credible by your reputation as a diligent researcher of all things LENR.
...Wasn’t it not too long ago that you were claiming that Celani should “add more wires” beneath a link to a paper where he did exactly that?
...And then spent a week repeatedly denying that was the case, instead of just reading paper being discussed?
LOLS
-
David,
At ICCF21, Larry Forsley mentioned the two agencies that provided funding for his/GEC R/D, were the DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), and the DOE. So while not official, there is some money flowing into the field. Even Swartz mentioned the DTRA funding, although I am not sure if he mean't he was being funded, or that others were. I guess the same can be said for NASA/GEC partnership. While GEC is paying them for use of their facilities, NASA is most likely covering most of the costs.
-
Quote
Wasn’t it not too long ago that you were claiming that Celani should “add more wires” beneath a link to a paper where he did exactly that?
Celani mainly added loops, making minor changes in the number of wires. It was nothing like what he should have done and it did not prove he is producing excess energy. IIRC, most of the paper theory and conjecture in which I have no interest. It was like feeding a starving person with cardboard.
So tell me about all the people who took Swartz's class and went on to replicate his LENR energy-making machine.
-
The funniest part was when you kept on quoting the footnote at the end of the paper, whilst believing that was the main text (despite being told several times of your error)... Proving at once that you both hadn't bothered to read the whole paper, and that you are obstinately ignorant.
I bet you still haven't bothered to read it properly - so your opinion, as usual, is worthless.So tell me about all the people..
Another spoon-feeding request?
-
Quote
Another spoon-feeding request?
Yes, Asking you to support you view with evidence always turns out to be a spoon feeding request, Go get your spoon and feed, If you have any food.
"So tell me about all the people who took Swartz's class and went on to replicate his LENR energy-making machine." There aren't any, are there?
-
Asking you to support you view
Um you’re the one promulgating your uninformed viewpoints... The only view I’m holding here is that you are a proven pillock.
-
Quote
Um you’re the one promulgating your uninformed viewpoints...
Uninformed in your view so, who cares?
QuoteThe only view I’m holding here is that you are a proven pillock
Alan Smith Shane D. Care to comment on the style? May I respond in kind? I'd love to teach Zeus some lovely American words. I had to actually look up "pillock" ... it's pretty obscure. It derives from pillicock a Norwegian slang term for "penis".
Meanwhile the original question remains unanswered, probably because the answer is that nobody has built an LENR machine from Swartz's course's teachings. At least, nobody credible.
-
Uninformed in your view so, who cares?
And in your own view too, apparently...
@zeus46
As I said before, I have no interest in claims for small, low level, low power LENR effects. I know nothing about those, I care little about them... So what?And you actually looked something up? Wow!...There’s a first time for everything, I guess. Perhaps in your headlong rush to manufacture some pretend offence, you didn’t notice the dictionary lists it as neither ‘vulgar’ or ‘derogatory’. Which is fortunate, as it’s a rather fitting description for yourself.
-
"So tell me about all the people who took Swartz's class and went on to replicate his LENR energy-making machine." There aren't any, are there?
I believe I mentioned this first. So I'll answer. I have no idea whether anyone has replicated Swartz. I have not heard from anyone who did, and Swartz himself refuses to discuss the issue. I have also not attended any of the classes, and I do not know who attended, what they thought, or what they did later. I am no help at all . . .
However, I have seen the list of presentations at these classes, and I believe they cover a variety of topics beyond Swartz's own work. So even if no one replicated, they may have learned something useful. Perhaps they replicated some other device, or contributed to the field some other way. I wouldn't know. But as a general rule, classes are good. Reading & talking about science is good.
