Appeal No. 1999-0928
Application No. 08/334,952
evidence of excess heat production without a relationship to
concomitant production of neutrons, tritium, and helium, was
explained by considering a recombination of hydrogen and oxygen
evolved during the experiment, not by categorizing the experiment
as “cold fusion” (page 729). Finally, Jones teaches that the
production of excess heat generation during water electrolysis
“could be readily terminated by the introduction of various
barriers to the migration of hydrogen and oxygen” and that
“[t]here is no compelling evidence that excess heat is of a
nuclear origin in such electrolytic cells.” Jones, page 6973,
abstract. Therefore, on this record, the examiner has not
presented any evidence that appellants’ generation of “excess
heat” during electrolysis of water is of a nuclear origin or
that appellants’ invention should be categorized as “cold fusion”
but, on the contrary, the evidence of record supports the
opposite view when “excess heat” is the only by-product of the
electrolysis.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief and
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007