Replies

I would still like to know more about how the decision was made to finally grant the patent.

Interesting that the International Patent page states the IPC are "C01B 3/00 (2006.01), C01B 6/02 (2006.01)," but the Italian patent listing gives a "Class Code" (which I assume is the IPC determination) of H01M.

The definition of H01M? Check it out... here (PDF).

PROCESSES OR MEANS, e.g. BATTERIES, FOR THE DIRECT CONVERSION OF CHEMICAL ENERGY INTO ELECTRICAL ENERGY (electrochemical processes or apparatus in general C 25; semiconductor or other solid state devices for converting light or heat into electrical energy H 01 L, e.g. 31/00, 35/00, 37/00)

What is your position on Cold Fusion in general [...]

I think that it's possible that there are mechanisms for "cold" fusion that might be viable someday, but I'm not an expert in the field. I do, however, know enough about some of the instrumentation I've seen in videos and other listings, and I wonder if they're using the correct instrumentation. I also wonder why they don't follow conventional means of bringing discoveries forward (and of testing).

And so, once again the devil is in the details. Gondring uncovers classification code of the Italian Rossi patent as H01M:

PROCESSES OR MEANS, e.g. BATTERIES, FOR THE DIRECT CONVERSION OF CHEMICAL ENERGY INTO ELECTRICAL ENERGY (electrochemical processes or apparatus in general C 25; semiconductor or other solid state devices for converting light or heat into electrical energy H 01 L, e.g. 31/00, 35/00, 37/00)

Good spade work Gondring. Now we cross reference this info against the broadly worded claims of the Rossi patent (google WO 2009/125444 A1) which are broad enough to encompass chemical reactions. It would appear the Rossi patent has slipped past as a chemical reactor in which case its possible a practical demo of the device for patent examiner's benefit never occurred.

Of course, as a chemical reactor the eCAT is of no commercial value but then its not the role of the patent office to determine commercial value.

If nuclear reactions are occurring then Rossi is still protected but the granting of the patent only covers ‘exothermic reactions of nickle and hydrogen under pressure’ which could easily fall short of nuclear reactions. Thus we are back at square one as pertains the validity of the eCAT.

Someone more expert please correct me.