headers
Luther Setzer | 3 Oct 2001 13:23

Question on Patents

Hi,

The mission of all discussion within the Hydrino Study Group (HSG) is 
to determine whether classical physical laws describe reality on all 
scales.

Related to this purpose is what the patent office considers to 
be "good science". As we know, the patent office approved the first 
hydrino patent but yanked the remaining ones. However, the BLP 
development page at

http://www.blacklightpower.com/development.html

asserts that the patent office has authorized "allowance of 6 
additional US patents with thousands of fundamental claims".

What exactly does "allowance" mean? Does it mean simply that the 
patent office has not rejected them outright, but has not fully 
approved them, either? This would imply that the patent office 
thinks the HSG science premise is plausible, but not rigorously 
proven.

The patent office has gained some notoriety for approving patents 
adhering to questionable scientific principles, so an ambivalent 
position on their part would not surprise me.

Luke Setzer
Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
R. Wormus | 3 Oct 2001 17:26

(unknown)

Luther,

The value of a patent depends on the scope of its claims. When a claim is allowed it means the examiner is not
challenging it and that the claim will eventually end up in the patent as written.

Patent examiners spend most of their time challenging claim language and trying to narrow the scope of the
patent. While the inventor and attorney tryto get as broad a claim allowed as possible.

Ron
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Paul Rupert | 3 Oct 2001 22:14

Re: Question on Patents

At 04:23 AM 10/3/01 , Luther Setzer wrote:
What exactly does "allowance" mean?

Allowance is the last thing the USPTO
(United States Patent & Trademark Office) does in
the 'examination' part of issuing patents. The
very last thing would be publication, also known
as issue.

It means that the USPTO has found no 'formal' grounds
based on merit to deny issuing the patent.

According to the law
(35 U.S.C. 101) inventors are entitled to patents
unless they fail one of the various prior-art
tests. There is a policy against issuing patents
for perpetual motion machines, but there is no
science review function and plenty of other impossible
gadgets and methods have been patented in the past.

The patent office has no laboratory, no subpoena powers,
no investigative powers at all. It is really quite impossible
for the patent office to dispute assertions of fact within
the written description of the patent application. All the
USPTO can do is review the claims for improperly attempting
to control what is in the prior art.

The issuance of a patent is of no worth whatsoever
when it comes to establishing scientific credibility.
The question of whether an alleged invention is patentable
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
ghetto | 4 Oct 2001 02:31

Re: Question on Patents

--- In hydrino <at> y.yahoo.invalid, "Luther Setzer" <luthersetzer <at> y.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

>>snipped

When the USPTO rejected Dr. Mills patents I think i recall that the 
court refused to intevene despite some apparent misgivings at the 
process because Dr. Mills hadn't exhausted his remedies. What are 
those remedies and what is the progress on the rejected patents? Does 
Dr. Mills simply reapply his patents or is there some kind of special 
Patent Review Panel that hears these matters? I imagine if he has to 
simply reapply it could be many more years before any decision is 
made.

Is there perhaps an action on foot for damages that persons were 
involved in the patent decision making process who had no 
legal/statutory right to do so? (ie By third parties in conflict with 
or known to be hostile to Dr. Mills calling up friends and contacts
in 
the USPTO and asking them to yank the patent).

It's been a while since the revocation and if they are able (or 
authorised by their client) to do so, maybe the patent attorneys
could 
shed some light on what's happening.

Regards,

Antony Macken
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dr. Randell L. Mills | 5 Oct 2001 23:54

High-Redshift Galaxies

On 9/20/01, Dave Fafarman wrote that CQM does not address 
high-redshift galaxies:

>Also, in a nine page article to which the issue would be more than 
>a >little relevant, there is no mention whatever of intrinsic 
>redshifts, >which were first confirmed nearly a century ago and 
>recently >reconfirmed on a larger scale from Hubble Space 
>Telescope >observations.

>(In all fairness, the GUT/CQM book doesn't deal with 
>this >inconvenient data either, in 100 times the space.)

This issue is addressed in the Fall 2001 version in print:

p. 473:
Composition of the Universe
In the case that lower-energy hydrogen comprises the dark 
matter, all matter is ordinary (baryonic) matter, and the mass of the 
universe is sufficient for it to be closed [23-24]. Whereas, the 
standard theory of big bang nucleosynthesis explains the observed 
abundance of light elements (H, He, and Li) only if the present 
density of ordinary (baryonic) matter is less than 10 % of the 
critical value [37-38]. According to CQM, the abundance of the 
lighter elements, H, He, and Li can be explained by neutron, proton, 
and electron production during the contraction phase and stellar 
nucleosynthesis during the contraction as well as the expansion phase 
of the expansion/contraction cycle. In the latter case, stellar and 
galaxy evolution occurred during the contraction phase as revealed by 
high-redshift radio galaxies and galaxies associated with extremely 
distant, luminous quasars that date back to the beginning of the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dave Fafarman | 6 Oct 2001 04:47

Re: High-Redshift Galaxies

I wrote:
>Also, in a nine page article to which the issue would be more
>than a little relevant, there is no mention whatever of intrinsic
>redshifts, which were first confirmed nearly a century ago and
>recently reconfirmed on a larger scale from Hubble Space
>Telescope observations.

>(In all fairness, the GUT/CQM book doesn't deal with
>this inconvenient data either, in 100 times the space.)

Randy wrote:
# On 9/20/01, Dave Fafarman wrote that CQM does not address
# high-redshift galaxies:

Um, the above is a misinterpretation of my comments. The problem is not
merely "high redshifts" -- it is ANOMALOUS redshifts. The ones that were
"confirmed nearly a century ago" are actually STARS within our Milky Way
Galaxy -- and the redshifts aren't all that high, but they ARE odd. There
were some attempts made to explain them, but most people finally gave up
and forgot about it. Subsequently, Halton Arp, Margaret Burbidge, and
others noted that many quasars (notably, the "Einstein cross") and galaxies
gave strong indications of being associated with objects of lower redshift
-- which is an impossibility unless the redshifts are intrinsic. Finally,
the recent Hubble Space Telescope data provides evidence that galaxies in
the Virgo cluster that were thought to not be members because of their high
redshifts, apparently ARE members.

Incidentally, the supposed properties of quasars (if they were actually at
their presumed "redshift distances") have been thought to be bizarre ever
since they were discovered. Folks have started taking their weirdness for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
John McClaughry (Ethan Allen Institute | 8 Oct 2001 16:32

(unknown)

What happened to the 6 BLP patent applications was this: the first and broadest was allowed and issued in
February 2000. The remaining five were allowed by the examiners after 3 years of prosecution, the fees
were paid, the patents were listed in the Patent Gazette and given a number. Then 2 days after the first
patent issued, the PTO abruptly pulled the remaining five allowed applications out of the printing
queue. Therefore the allowed applications did not become issued patents. This extraordinary action is
the subject of BLP v. PTO, now before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in DC. A decision is expected by
the end of this year. I read the briefs and oral argument transcript, and in my view BLP has a very good chance
of prevailing in that court.

John McClaughry
Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |
headers
novel_compound | 8 Oct 2001 23:33

Has the PTO given a reason?

<< 2 days after the first patent issued, the PTO abruptly pulled the 
remaining five allowed applications out of the printing queue. 
Therefore the allowed applications did not become issued patents. 
This extraordinary action is the subject of BLP v. PTO, now before 
the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in DC. >>

Mr. McClaughry:

What arguments is the PTO using in defense of "pulling" these five 
patents? Very curious to know.
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
John McClaughry (Ethan Allen Institute | 11 Oct 2001 03:39

Re: Has the PTO given a reason?

Well, that's what the case is about. PTO didnt deny the application, which
triggers an administrative appeal process. (Later on they did.) In fact, the
official who pulled the applications had not even seen the patent folder. The
PTO counsel couldn't explain why she pulled them. Mills' attorneys believe
the action was the result of outside influence on somebody in the patent
office, but they waived discovery on this point and proceeded on the very
narrow question. PTO counsel said the PTO would not have issued the sweeping
first BLP patent if they had been paying attention. Of course 2 examiners
with 50 years combined experience allowed the first patent (as well as the
next 5) after 3+ years of prosecution and 5 meetings with Mills. They have
been told to shut up about this, and have been removed from considering
further Mills applications.

novel_compound <at> y.yahoo.invalid wrote:

> << 2 days after the first patent issued, the PTO abruptly pulled the
> remaining five allowed applications out of the printing queue.
> Therefore the allowed applications did not become issued patents.
> This extraordinary action is the subject of BLP v. PTO, now before
> the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in DC. >>
>
> Mr. McClaughry:
>
> What arguments is the PTO using in defense of "pulling" these five
> patents? Very curious to know.
>
>
> Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
> A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
> Web Site http://www.hydrino.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Dr. Randell L. Mills | 11 Oct 2001 14:40

Re: High-Redshift Galaxies

Dave Fafarman wrote:

Um, the above is a misinterpretation of my comments. The problem is not
merely "high redshifts" -- it is ANOMALOUS redshifts. The ones that were
"confirmed nearly a century ago" are actually STARS within our Milky Way
Galaxy -- and the redshifts aren't all that high, but they ARE odd. There
were some attempts made to explain them, but most people finally gave up
and forgot about it. Subsequently, Halton Arp, Margaret Burbidge, and
others noted that many quasars (notably, the "Einstein cross") and galaxies
gave strong indications of being associated with objects of lower redshift
-- which is an impossibility unless the redshifts are intrinsic. Finally,
the recent Hubble Space Telescope data provides evidence that galaxies in
the Virgo cluster that were thought to not be members because of their high
redshifts, apparently ARE members.

Incidentally, the supposed properties of quasars (if they were actually at
their presumed "redshift distances") have been thought to be bizarre ever
since they were discovered. Folks have started taking their weirdness for
granted -- perhaps they shouldn't.

RM-
If you have some references, I'll take a look at them when I get some time.

DF-
If the "dark matter" consists of hydrinos, there would be quite a lot of
them required. It is thought that visible matter cannot exceed 10% of the
total (according to the Time article, 5%) for the universe to be closed.
Even though hydrinos are difficult to observe, I would think they'd have
been noticed long ago if they constituted 95% of all matter. They're not
as hard to detect as, say, neutrinos.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 502 comments |

Gmane