TheEEStory.com

Daniel R Plante wrote:

dfwrunner wrote:

Generic wrote:

mclovin02 wrote:

Not! This was created by Lockheed just in case eestor had developed anything in time for that battery competition they had a while back. Obviously, that didn't go anywhere either.
http://www.sfc.com/en/news/neu-efoy-pro-series....

So you don't think Lockheed's specifically mentioning EEstor in their patent filing adds any credibility to the company? They have exclusive rights to the tech in military applications, and could've just as easily left the battery description as generic as possible.

No credibility impact from this statement whatsoever, the statement merely envisions possible battery incarnations, one of which might be an EESU if it turns out to be a legitimate technology. It says absolutely nothing about the present existence of a working device.

I don't think "existence of a working device" is the focus here. That issue has been done to death and is beside the point IMO. The point here is whether LM regards EEStor's tech as viable.

If I was not confident about a certain technology, I wouldn't include it in my patent. Any future decertification of an embodiment technology might invalidate my patent, or profoundly reduce the credibility of my patent.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No, I wouldn't take that chance with my patent.

The inclusion of the reference is merely a listing of several possible alternative solutions for power source, nothing more or less. It is possibly included because of the earlier publically acknowledged agreement with EEStor, but says absolutely nothing about the existence of such a device. I don't think you should draw any other conclusions.

---

Daniel R Plante wrote:

Whether the application refers to an EEStor unit as an exemplary or alternative embodiment is also irrelevant IMO.

The significance is in the fact that the EEStor tech was incorporated into the application at all, as well as further treatments of this embodiment wrt ballistic behaviour, etc.

I think it's a rather important distinction. If EEStor tech had been the primary tech in the patent, this would be positive proof that LM was actively working to develop an EEStor prototype. As it is, the reference to an EEStor EESU could be nothing more than an afterthought.

Daniel R Plante wrote:

If I was not confident about a certain technology, I wouldn't include it in my patent. Any future decertification of an embodiment technology might invalidate my patent, or profoundly reduce the credibility of my patent.

I'm not a patent expert, but common sense suggests that's not correct. If something listed as an "alternative" in the patent turned out to be unworkable, how would that affect patent protection?

Again, the technology in patents doesn't have to be workable. It just has to be something that was never patented before.

Last edited Sun, 28 Dec 2008, 8:40pm by Darth Lensman Archive

dfwrunner wrote:

Generic wrote:

mclovin02 wrote:

Not! This was created by Lockheed just in case eestor had developed anything in time for that battery competition they had a while back. Obviously, that didn't go anywhere either.
http://www.sfc.com/en/news/neu-efoy-pro-series....

So you don't think Lockheed's specifically mentioning EEstor in their patent filing adds any credibility to the company? They have exclusive rights to the tech in military applications, and could've just as easily left the battery description as generic as possible.

No credibility impact from this statement whatsoever, the statement merely envisions possible battery incarnations, one of which might be an EESU if it turns out to be a legitimate technology. It says absolutely nothing about the present existence of a working device.

Sorry dfwrunner, the cat is out of the bag. You can't put it back in either. Then again, if you can show me a Lockheed Martin patent application that references the tooth fairy, I will agree with your statement that this adds no credibility whatsoever. Ha!!

If this were simply about battery incarnations, the preamble of the application wouldn't have referenced the problems of "batteries" today and specifically the ability of a bullet to render them offline.

I will concede that the application is generic enough to enable Lockheed to own future energy storage options beyond today's EEStor tech which is the ONLY reason that lithium ion is mentioned at all.

---

I think you are right B and the cat is a tiger.

---

Lensman wrote:

Daniel R Plante wrote:

Whether the application refers to an EEStor unit as an exemplary or alternative embodiment is also irrelevant IMO.

The significance is in the fact that the EEStor tech was incorporated into the application at all, as well as further treatments of this embodiment wrt ballistic behaviour, etc.

I think it's a rather important distinction. If EEStor tech had been the primary tech in the patent, this would be positive proof that LM was actively working to develop an EEStor prototype. As it is, the reference to an EEStor EESU could be nothing more than an afterthought.

An afterthought? The phrase "Electrical Energy Storage Unit" only came on the scene post-EEStor. Before that, it was always called a "battery."

Again: show me a Lockheed Martin patent application that references Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, and I will withdraw all of my comments that this patent application adds MAJOR credibility to EEStor Inc.

BTW, the EESU management tech mentioned in the patent is likely EXACTLY what Carl Watkins is talking about in terms of a controller for ebikes handling range and speed. But in this case, we should be thinking of clothes which would enable interesting capabilities like super-strength, robotic or locomotive capabilities and yes, of course, weaponry based on electrical not chemical explosions...like rail guns or....freakin' lasers.

---

mclovin02 wrote:

B, with all due respect, I'm sure that Lockheed has countless patent applications for failed technologies and applications of those technologies, not that I have the time right now to research this assumption, but I'm sure a reasonable person could see that a company this big with many irons in the fire will run into that problem from time to time. I believe Lockheed probably thought that EESTOR was onto something and acted accordingly, I would do the same thing in light of the competition that they wanted to win, but as we know Weir and company has yet to demonstrate a single piece of evidence, I'll repeat that, A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. I'm sure you all thought that Weir was coming out with this damned mythical incarnation as he claimed back in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. And yet.... BIG FAT ZERO!

It's very interesting to me that so many act as if EEStor hasn't demonstrated anything. Really? Exactly how would you know that? Please enlighten me. Are you a member of the board of directors?

What you need to do to repair your statement is to say that Weir and team have not allowed a public demonstration. There's an enormous difference.

---

dfwrunner wrote:

Daniel R Plante wrote:

dfwrunner wrote:

Generic wrote:

mclovin02 wrote:

Not! This was created by Lockheed just in case eestor had developed anything in time for that battery competition they had a while back. Obviously, that didn't go anywhere either.
http://www.sfc.com/en/news/neu-efoy-pro-series....

So you don't think Lockheed's specifically mentioning EEstor in their patent filing adds any credibility to the company? They have exclusive rights to the tech in military applications, and could've just as easily left the battery description as generic as possible.

No credibility impact from this statement whatsoever, the statement merely envisions possible battery incarnations, one of which might be an EESU if it turns out to be a legitimate technology. It says absolutely nothing about the present existence of a working device.

I don't think "existence of a working device" is the focus here. That issue has been done to death and is beside the point IMO. The point here is whether LM regards EEStor's tech as viable.

If I was not confident about a certain technology, I wouldn't include it in my patent. Any future decertification of an embodiment technology might invalidate my patent, or profoundly reduce the credibility of my patent.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No, I wouldn't take that chance with my patent.

The inclusion of the reference is merely a listing of several possible alternative solutions for power source, nothing more or less. It is possibly included because of the earlier publically acknowledged agreement with EEStor, but says absolutely nothing about the existence of such a device. I don't think you should draw any other conclusions.

DFW, your grasp of the timelines is suspect. The application was entered in Spring 07...long before the Lockheed/EEStor partnership was announced. That alone suggests a lengthy relationship existed between Lockheed and EEStor prior to that. Very interesting indeed.

Lockheed mentions EEStor and other "batteries" to illustrate how different the two are. They didn't say batteries and "some magic sticks" to illustrate their point. They mentioned a technology they must know well enough to reference in an expensive patent application process.

---

eestorblog wrote:

dfwrunner wrote:

Generic wrote:

mclovin02 wrote:

Not! This was created by Lockheed just in case eestor had developed anything in time for that battery competition they had a while back. Obviously, that didn't go anywhere either.
http://www.sfc.com/en/news/neu-efoy-pro-series....

I don't see it at all. There's absolutely no news there.

So you don't think Lockheed's specifically mentioning EEstor in their patent filing adds any credibility to the company? They have exclusive rights to the tech in military applications, and could've just as easily left the battery description as generic as possible.

No credibility impact from this statement whatsoever, the statement merely envisions possible battery incarnations, one of which might be an EESU if it turns out to be a legitimate technology. It says absolutely nothing about the present existence of a working device.

Sorry dfwrunner, the cat is out of the bag. You can't put it back in either. Then again, if you can show me a Lockheed Martin patent application that references the tooth fairy, I will agree with your statement that this adds no credibility whatsoever. Ha!!

If this were simply about battery incarnations, the preamble of the application wouldn't have referenced the problems of "batteries" today and specifically the ability of a bullet to render them offline.

I will concede that the application is generic enough to enable Lockheed to own future energy storage options beyond today's EEStor tech which is the ONLY reason that lithium ion is mentioned at all.

---

eestorblog wrote:

The phrase "Electrical Energy Storage Unit" only came on the scene post-EEStor. Before that, it was always called a "battery."

B:

I don't want to be rude here, but I suggest you read the patent more carefully. It's quite clear the term "electrical energy storage unit" and "electrical energy storage device" are generic descriptive terms used interchangably in the patent, and are *not* a reference to EEStor's EESU.

Furthermore, by Googling a bit, one can easily find references to non-EEStor "electrical energy storage units", such as this patent application.

I think the heart of what we're discussing can be found here:

In one embodiment, electrical energy storage layer 203 comprises one or more adjacent rechargeable, lithium ion polymer batteries; however, other types of electrical energy storage units are contemplated by the present invention. Lithium ion polymer batteries are particularly useful in body armor 101 because can be made in thin portions and are not prone to burn when broken or otherwise compromised.

Alternatively, electrical energy storage unit 109 may comprise one or more solid state, capacitive, electrical energy storage devices, such as those provided by EEstor, Inc. [...] Electrical energy storage unit 203 may alternatively comprise one or more lithium ion batteries, one or more nickel-metal hydride batteries, or the like.

In addition to the numerous types of batteries mentioned, notice the reference to "electrical energy storage devices, such as those provided by EEstor, Inc." Not "electrical energy storage units, but devices. Again, a thorough reading of the patent makes it quite clear that the term "electrical energy storage unit" as used in this patent is *not* a specific reference to EEStor's EESU.

eestorblog wrote:

Again: show me a Lockheed Martin patent application that references Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, and I will withdraw all of my comments that this patent application adds MAJOR credibility to EEStor Inc.

I do indeed think this patent adds significantly to EEStor's credibility. Don't confuse my opinion with that of frex dwfrunner just because he's agreeing with me.

But as has already been said, surely this is neither the first nor last time that LM has included technologies still under development in their patents; technologies that may lead to working devices... or may eventually prove impractical.

Last edited Mon, 29 Dec 2008, 11:09am by Darth Lensman Archive

eestorblog wrote:

dfwrunner wrote:

Daniel R Plante wrote:

dfwrunner wrote:

Generic wrote:

mclovin02 wrote:

Not! This was created by Lockheed just in case eestor had developed anything in time for that battery competition they had a while back. Obviously, that didn't go anywhere either.
http://www.sfc.com/en/news/neu-efoy-pro-series....

Certainly there was a long span of interest in EEStor before the agreement. Engineers within most technology companies have been aware and interested in EEStor as long as anyone in this blog. I know I've been following it for years before I found the barium...blog.

So you don't think Lockheed's specifically mentioning EEstor in their patent filing adds any credibility to the company? They have exclusive rights to the tech in military applications, and could've just as easily left the battery description as generic as possible.

No credibility impact from this statement whatsoever, the statement merely envisions possible battery incarnations, one of which might be an EESU if it turns out to be a legitimate technology. It says absolutely nothing about the present existence of a working device.

I don't think "existence of a working device" is the focus here. That issue has been done to death and is beside the point IMO. The point here is whether LM regards EEStor's tech as viable.

If I was not confident about a certain technology, I wouldn't include it in my patent. Any future decertification of an embodiment technology might invalidate my patent, or profoundly reduce the credibility of my patent.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No, I wouldn't take that chance with my patent.

The inclusion of the reference is merely a listing of several possible alternative solutions for power source, nothing more or less. It is possibly included because of the earlier publically acknowledged agreement with EEStor, but says absolutely nothing about the existence of such a device. I don't think you should draw any other conclusions.

DFW, your grasp of the timelines is suspect. The application was entered in Spring 07...long before the Lockheed/EEStor partnership was announced. That alone suggests a lengthy relationship existed between Lockheed and EEStor prior to that. Very interesting indeed.

Lockheed mentions EEStor and other "batteries" to illustrate how different the two are. They didn't say batteries and "some magic sticks" to illustrate their point. They mentioned a technology they must know well enough to reference in an expensive patent application process.

---

If this app was filed "in Spring 07" as b says, how does this further validate LM in the relationship. I mean, we know that they signed an agreement with EEstor after this app was filed in Jan/08. It's great to see LM reference EEStor, even in passing, but it doesn't really acknowledge anything.

---

Lensman wrote:

richterm wrote:

Lensman wrote:

Sorry, but no. The mention of EEStor's EESU appears only in the notes as a proposed *alternative* power source.

I disagree Lens. The whole patent is geared toward an EESU. Read the title. That's not a fuel cell or a Li-ion battery in the garment.

*Chuckle*

Interesting how this patent is functioning as a Rorschach inkblot test, with forum members reading their own preconceptions, both pro- and anti-EEStor, into what they read.

Richterm, the phrase "Electrical Energy Storage Unit" does appear in the title, and at first glance, it's certainly understandable that we on this forum think this refers to EEStor's EESU.

However, if you click on the "Description" tab at the referenced website, and scan down thru the text, you'll find:

Alternatively, electrical energy storage unit 109 may comprise one or more solid state, capacitive, electrical energy storage devices, such as those provided by EEstor, Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas...

This makes it quite clear that the title does *not* refer to EEStor's device, nor does the illustration show an EEStor EESU. As I said, a reference to EEStor's EESU is included as an *alternative* power device.

BTW that's part of the text that GaryB posted above, in the parent post, so it *should* have been clear from the beginning of this thread. It certainly was clear to *me*. So far as I can see-- correct me if I'm wrong-- this is the *only* reference to EEStor or EEStor's tech in the entire document.

This is *not* proof that EEStor's tech works. It *is* proof of continued interest by LM in developing prototypes using EEStor's tech.

I think you're being silly here Lens.

"storage unit 109 may comprise one or more solid state, capacitive, electrical energy storage devices"

Exactly how many other "capacitive, electrical energy storage devices" are you aware of with the potential to hold the needed power for this type of application? So it's a coincidence that LM included "Electrical Energy Storage Unit" in the title?

Of course it would be silly for LM to write a patent that only covered the use of an EESU in a garment. They have the rights agreement for that. They are trying to protect the IP of this idea in case anyone else develops a competing ultracapacitor in the coming years.

I think I'm a pretty fair observer. I'm willing to call BS on this whole thing if I see evidence, so I don't have preconceptions telling me this must be what I'm hoping for.

I'm *not* saying this is conclusive proof that the EESU works. I am saying it's a strong indication that what LM saw in their work with the EESU between January and April was impressive enough for them to submit this patent, and specifically name Eestor.

And yes, I think the diagram and size shown are with an Eestor EESU in mind.

---

Good grief. As Ripley asked in "Aliens", "Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?"

richterm wrote:

Exactly how many other "capacitive, electrical energy storage devices" are you aware of with the potential to hold the needed power for this type of application?

Exactly three other storage devices are mentioned in the patent. In fact, the others are mentioned more than once... I think EEStor's EESU is the only one mentioned just once.

The description specifically mentions "lithium ion polymer batteries", and then later says "Alternatively..." listing EEStor's EESU and two other battery types.

What part of "Alternatively" don't you understand?

richterm wrote:

So it's a coincidence that LM included "Electrical Energy Storage Unit" in the title?

No more than it's a "coincidence" that the term is used in any other non-EEStor patent. I've already referenced one above. If you need other references, Google is your friend.

richterm wrote:

They are trying to protect the IP of this idea in case anyone else develops a competing ultracapacitor in the coming years.

No, I think they're trying to patent the idea of integrating wearable power into body armor. At any rate, its certainly a broader patent application than you're suggesting.

richterm wrote:

I think I'm a pretty fair observer.

Looks to me more like observer bias.

I agree Lens - good grief. Let's leave it at that.

---

eestorblog wrote:

It's very interesting to me that so many act as if EEStor hasn't demonstrated anything. Really? Exactly how would you know that? Please enlighten me. Are you a member of the board of directors?

What you need to do to repair your statement is to say that Weir and team have not allowed a public demonstration. There's an enormous difference.

Hey B,
1) How do you know Weir and his team have not allowed a public demonstration?
2) Are you on the Board of Directors of EESTOR?
3) If I was a current ZENN stock holder I would be pissed at the Board of Directors of EESTOR for telling you this information and not telling Ian Clifford...I would be even more pissed if Ian Clifford knows about the demonstrations but is not going to disclose the information to ZENN stock holders.
Like I've said before, I smell a rat here!!!!!

---

zawy wrote:

First of all, this is all old news.

Secondly, there's nothing to indicate anyone has seen a working prototype, which we all know is fantasy.

Cleanbreak seems to think it's new news:
http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/12/29/lockheed-na...

Earth2Tech also seems to find this new information newsworthy:

http://earth2tech.com/2008/12/29/lockheed-marti...

As for the working prototype....guess you'll need to stay glued to this site Zawy to find out. :-)

---

It will be interesting to see if CapMan sees anything unusual in the time frames in the patent, ie, did it proceed quickly?

---

Zenn stock actually opened up lower in trading this am. Obviously the market doesn't see the LM news as anything significant.

---

It looks like this post has become a battleground for the believers and non-believers. I would prefer to stay more on the neutral side and post one of my observations.

I finally got around to reading the prior patent applications:
60/911,066 10.04.2007
and
60/940,880 30.05.2007

In either of these documents EEstor or EESU or Electrical Energy Storage Units were ever mentioned. It looks like the current patent was re-written to include the EEstor EEsu.
The original title of patent app. 60/911,066 was "BODY ARMOR HAVING CONFORMING BATTERY LAYER" and was then changed to " GARMENT INCLUDING ELECTRICAL ENERGY STORAGE UNIT".
I think it is pretty obvious that term was used to refer to EESTOR's EESU. Not only is the name of the company used, but a whole paragraph explaining who and what EESTOR is.
If they would have refered to someone like A123 and wrote a paragraph of who they are and what they make, then I would come to the conclusion that they are working exclusively with them and not lithium ion companies in general. Also, if problems developed with eestor's tech, Lockheed Martin had plenty of time to revoke this patent application. The fact that they let this go through tells me that there probably is something to this.

---

EVSupporter wrote:

Zenn stock actually opened up lower in trading this am. Obviously the market doesn't see the LM news as anything significant.

Or the December 23 newsletter in which Zenn stated that they no longer expected an EESU for 2008 is still playing a factor. Since it wasn't done as a public news release, I would expect that this info took a bit longer to make it's way around. Especially given the holiday season.

GaryB wrote:

If they would have refered to someone like A123 and wrote a paragraph of who they are and what they make, then I would come to the conclusion that they are working exclusively with them and not lithium ion companies in general. Also, if problems developed with eestor's tech, Lockheed Martin had plenty of time to revoke this patent application. The fact that they let this go through tells me that there probably is something to this.

That's my thought as well. They left the patent generic enough that if eestor falls through, they can use another energy storage medium without having to scrap the entire patent.

But mentioning the EESU in the patent indicates to me that they have a serious intention of working with it.

Of course, having a serious intention and having seen a working prototype are not one in the same. :)

Something which hasn't been mentioned, which I find significant, is that this is a WIPO "World Patent". EEStor's WIPO has been denigrated on this forum by more than one person who claimed that a WIPO is inherently worthless, and that getting one is an indication of ignorance on EEStor's part.

I think it's safe to say that if Lockheed Martin went to the trouble of getting a WIPO patent, they don't consider it "worthless".

eestorblog wrote:

The application was entered in Spring 07...long before the Lockheed/EEStor partnership was announced. That alone suggests a lengthy relationship existed between Lockheed and EEStor prior to that. Very interesting indeed.

Very interesting indeed. Rumors of DARPA involvement with EEStor predate B's Barium Titanate Blogspot. DARPA is not LM, but they both deal with development of defense/military applications, and I believe they do work closely together from time to time. Is it possible that an early involvement by LM lead to the rumors of DARPA involvement?

Just speculating here, of course. Like B, I'd like to know just how long ago LM first became involved with EEStor.

GaryB wrote:

The original title of patent app. 60/911,066 was "BODY ARMOR HAVING CONFORMING BATTERY LAYER" and was then changed to " GARMENT INCLUDING ELECTRICAL ENERGY STORAGE UNIT".
I think it is pretty obvious that term was used to refer to EESTOR's EESU. Not only is the name of the company used, but a whole paragraph explaining who and what EESTOR is.

Contrariwise, I think it's pretty obvious that they changed the description from "battery" to the more generic "electrical energy storage unit" so that the category *could* include EEStor's EESU, or perhaps some other supercapacitor.

If LM had specifically meant EEStor tech in the title, then why did the paragraph describing EEStor's tech use the term "electrical energy storage device", instead of "electrical energy storage unit", hmmm?

You're reading too much into this. I note both the Clean Break and Earth2Tech articles, which B linked to, are careful to stipulate that EEStor's EESU is mentioned as *alternative* power storage, not the primary focus of the patent. The writers of those articles have a perspective which some over-eager EEStory forum members have lost.

Lensman wrote:

You're reading too much into this. I note both the Clean Break and Earth2Tech articles, which B linked to, are careful to stipulate that EEStor's EESU is mentioned as *alternative* power storage, not the primary focus of the patent. The writers of those articles have a perspective which some over-eager EEStory forum members have lost.

Tyler Hamilton gave a very balanced viewpoint of this from the perspective of the optimist and the pessimist. But I think he made it clear that the inclusion of EESTOR's name brought it more to the forefront.

What do we make of all this? An optimist would read Lockheed’s patent and see it as a huge boost of confidence in EEStor. That’s because Lockheed goes out of its way to mention EEStor, whereas mention of lithium-ion and nickel-metal hydride batteries remain generic. An optimist would also read the title of the patent — “Garment Including Electrical Energy Storage Unit” — as another endorsement of EEStor, given that its product has always been called an EESU or Electrical Energy Storage Unit.

A pessimist would focus on Lockheed’s wording in the patent, which could be interpreted as calling the EEStor technology a secondary choice after the preferred choice of lithium-ion batteries. A pessimist might also ask: So what? What if EEStor is mentioned in a patent application? Does it really say anything about EEStor’s technology, whether it works, or whether it can be mass produced?

Me? I think Lockheed could have just as easily not mentioned EEStor in the patent, so I take this as a good sign.

And I think it is very clear (at least to me anyway) that the patent application was completely rewritten and reworded with the emphasis around EESTOR. They could have just used a generic term like capacitor and left it at that.

We could argue these points all day long, the only ones who could really answer this would be the patent authors or someone like Lionel Liebman. So, until we hear from them, your viewpoint is just as valid as mine.

---

GaryB:

Thank you for your well-written and balanced post. Yes, Tyler Hamilton (as usual) gave a good, balanced summary. Thank you also, GaryB, for your research into the original form of this patent. I couldn't find that at the WIPO site-- is this info available to the general public?

Yes, it's now clear (from what you posted) that LM did significantly re-write the patent to make the inclusion of EEStor's EESU prominant, and it's now clear it wasn't just a belated afterthought.

The mention in the patent of EEStor's EESU as being "incorporated herein by reference for all purposes" is intriguing. I'm not that familiar with patents, but the most straightforward reading suggests to me that, again, the inclusion of EEStor's EESU wasn't just tacked on afterward, but that some thought was given to make sure the wording of the patent would be just as valid for use of EEStor's EESU as it is to the various types of batteries mentioned.

Lens,
Nekote uploaded the original applications
here: http://theeestory.com/files/US_60-940_880_30.05...
and here: http://theeestory.com/files/US_60-911_066_10.04...

The source can be found here:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=20081569...

---

One thing that this patent has made me aware of is how long an application can stay hidden without any hint of their existance. I wonder if all patents made by a defense contractor has to go through some sort of screening by the government or the military before they can be published. Some of you out there are more familiar with the patent process than I am. Is it normal for a patent application to take this long before being published?
It makes me wonder about the 17 other patents that EESTOR has made reference to. Have they already been submitted to the patent office and are just sitting there waiting for release approval? Your thoughts on this are appreciated.

---

GaryB wrote:

One thing that this patent has made me aware of is how long an application can stay hidden without any hint of their existance. I wonder if all patents made by a defense contractor has to go through some sort of screening by the government or the military before they can be published. Some of you out there are more familiar with the patent process than I am. Is it normal for a patent application to take this long before being published?
It makes me wonder about the 17 other patents that EESTOR has made reference to. Have they already been submitted to the patent office and are just sitting there waiting for release approval? Your thoughts on this are appreciated.

The time it takes to get a patent is directly proportional to the complexity of the invention. As you can see from the filing date of the patent for EESTOR {Aug/04} the process can take a long time.

But there are other factors also involved such as the benefit of the invention to mankind which can speed up the process to errors or omissions which can slow the process down.

Regardless of the process, it is my opinion that Weir et al. are simply getting all their ducks in a row. Have faith GaryB, if this thing is as far along as I suspect it is and the military is involved as apparently it is and the BIG THRUST for the next 4 to 8 years is to GET OFF FOREIGN OIL as it appears to be then it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the EESTOR unit start landing before the end of March.

I can understand the reasons for a patent to take quite awhile, but this is only a patent application. Is this the norm for applications as well?

---