Hadn’t heard this Kevmo, as with JAKraig I believe Ponds and Fleishman got the institutional shaft.
If the patents were denied they were required to provide a basis - are you aware what that may have been? In the past they have provided patents for non-functioning devices so I would be suprised if they rejected the patent unless it was due to incomplete documentation, being overly vague as to the unique nature, or trying to patent a concept instead of a design/process.
Of course the other idea could be that the govt (I’ve seen NASA is supposedly working on it in some of your other threads)does not want to prevent their own developments from going forward and locking it in for themselves - with everything else going on it wouldn’t be too far fetched to imagine.
It’s a long, sordid and ugly story. At Cold Fusion Times, they call it “HeavyWatergate”.
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Help End “Heavywatergate” and the 24 YEAR USPTO Coverup
HEAVYWATERGATE continues at the US Patent Office led by a corrupt group of individuals who routinely mischaracterize facts about cold fusion on federal documents. Why?
The US Patent Office has claimed falsely that there is “no utility” to cold fusion. Really? Does anyone believe that lie? Clean, efficient energy production has no use? Despite past open demonstrations, and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications, they claim falsely that there is no operability. There have been months of open demonstrations of cold fusion at MIT to which the USPTO Examiners were invited. They did not care; did not come; and continued to lie. But YOU do, don’t you!!!!