I want to make it clear that I don't claim that the patent is bogus. The patent examiner, after looking it over, decided there was enough novelty to grant the patent. All I am trying to point out is that certain reports that liken this to the discovery of fire are way off base. The reason this is important is that some believe that this patent will suddenly turn "cellulosic ethanol" from a uneconomical venture to a profitable one. In truth, this will mean some incremental cost advantage over the capital costs of biomass gasification. That is certainly good, but we shouldn't get carried away with expectations. I won't want us to take our eye off the fact that we are going to have to power down, and this is not the magic solution that saves us.

I really think the reason Khosla didn't answer the question I asked is that he probably wasn't quite sure. That's not a knock on him, because that is not his area of expertise. I don't expect him to know the technical details intimately. I just read the patent twice, am familiar with gasification, and the novelty didn't jump out at me. I read the claims, and found myself asking "why are those novel?"

But that's the way patents work. I have been involved in some like that myself. Joe Blow invents process X, and claims that it works from 800 degrees to 1400 degrees. We come in and do the same process at 700 degrees and file a patent. That's the way most patents go.