Aus dem aktuellen Bescheid der Prüfungsabteilung des europäischen Patentamtes:
The application does not meet the requirements of Article 83 EPC as the description does not disclose in a manner sufficiently clear the invention.
In the description it is claimed that the reaction of hydrogen with nickel produces copper (description page 5 lines 14-30) and is generating energy. However, there is no explicit evidence of copper and energy generation as a result of a nuclear reaction neither in the application as filed nor in the Supplementary Technical Information
(STIN) provided by the applicant with letters from 10.10.2011 and 10.11.2011.
The more an invention contradicts previously accepted technical wisdom, the greater the amount of technical information and explanation is required in the application to enable the invention to be carried out by the skilled person (T541/96, T1785/O6). At present cold fusion, which is the basic explanation given in the description for generating energy is not accepted as mainstream science and technology. Relevant for the present invention is D4, which is reporting an independent experiment between Nickel (as a rod) and hydrogen, where no heat generation could be put into evidence
, which would result as a fusion process between Nickel atom and a proton, with generation of copper. D4 however gives an explanation for a certain amount of energy created as being the standard absorption heat which is generated when hydrogen is absorbed by a metal/metal alloy.
The disclosure of the claimed invention is considered sufficiently clear and complete if it provides information which is sufficient to allow the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art without undue experimentation.
This implies, inter alia, the provision of all the data which the skilled person would need to carry out the claimed invention, since such a person, not being able to derive such data from any generally accepted theory, could not be expected to implement the teaching of the invention by trail and error.
In the present case, the invention does not provide evidence
which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention. The description is essentially based on speculations
which are not apt to provide a clear and exhaustive technical teaching.
While is it true that the STIN provided by the applicant apparently show a heating process, no evidence is provided that the temperature rise is caused by a nuclear reaction as from the description
. In addition, in the STIN dated 10.10.2011 it is reported that the process takes place 'in the presence of unknown catalysts'. No information on the catalyst material from the tube is provided in the description as filed.
Bis 19. Februar hat Rossi nun noch Zeit, Nägel mit Köpfen zu machen, ansonsten war es das wohl mit seiner Patentanmeldung.
Wer auf dem laufenden bleiben will, hier wird sämtlicher Schriftwechsel dazu dokumentiert:https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP08873805&lng=de&tab=doclist