>>>>So how many patents do you have, in which you are an inventor? I'm at ten so far, so I know enough about them.
Do you think you are an expert because you have 10 patents?
Most experts see more than that every week, as do I. How many patents you and I have in our names is irrelevant to whether or not we know patent law. I've worked with inventors who had hundreds of patents in their names, but had only a rudimentary understanding about the legalities of getting a patent. None of the inventors I've worked with were legal experts, and nearly all were smart enough to recognize that. You can chose to listen to me and discuss the points I raised above, or you can continue to pound the table about your expertise. It matters very little to me.
>>>How does anyone know what the old process was?
Well, the gentleman in the story seems to think he knows what it was. I don't think you get this. To apply for a patent he has to sign papers under oath saying its new. Since you have so much experience in patent applications you should know this. Don't you recall what the documents you signed said? This guy has specifically stated its not new. So, were he to apply for a patent he would either have to make a very, very, narrow and useless application, or he would be a proven liar, either on his application or in this interview. I doubt he will do that.
>>>>If anyone already knew the old process, nobody would need to "rediscover" it, would they?
Again, you don't get this either. Whether someone remembers the old process or not is immaterial. Having people remember the old process usually makes it easier to prove its old. However, an ADMISSION BY THE "INVENTOR" that the process is old is good enough to prove he has not found something "new and useful." Read the patent laws.
patent
"Do you think you are an expert because you have 10 patents?"
So your answer is none. Thought so.