Isn't It Ironic?
The patent claims require syrup flowing to the centrifuge and separation of oil to operate in a continuous fashion.
The District Court found certain defendant processes are not continuous because syrup flow to the centrifuge is sometimes interrupted during solid discharge cycles.
Yet during the 2003 bench test when cooled pitchers of syrup were intermittently poured into the gyro over a period of hours, it repeatedly clogged and was disassembled for cleaning.
This was somehow a reduction to practice? Sounds like a double standard.
Was more than 50% of the oil removed from the pitchers of syrup? It's doubtful since the test took hours, the syrup was allowed to cool and the gyro repeatedly clogged. Was the resulting de-oiled syrup returned to the process for drying as required?
After the test, something in the evaporation process allowed for oil to be extracted. Was it the reduction of water from evaporation? If so, what % range of moisture should they claim in a patent? Was it heat from evaporation? If so, what temperature should they claim in the patent? Was a heat exchanger needed? Since the centrifuge repeatedly clogged, would it even work in a continuous fashion or only in batches? Did plugging of the centrifuge mean higher or lower heat / higher or lower moisture was needed?
There's ample evidence this wasn't reduced to practice. In fact, Barlage stated after the test that more in-plant testing was needed to determine the best methods. So how was it ready for patenting if they hadn't determined the methods/parameters to patent?
They were even talking about using two centrifuges, one for solids and another for oil. Just more evidence they didn't know if it would work for it's intended purpose.
The only way to determine what to patent ie; temperature, moisture, ph, batch/continuous etc was to test it. Testing under actual conditions and proving it would work for it's intended purpose without plugging the centrifuge while dealing with high volumes of syrup (35 GPM). Not four 2 quart pitchers over a period of 4-6 hours.
If the inventors knew it worked for it's intended purpose and it was reduced to practice in 2003, why didn't they try and make sells for a year? Weren't they supposedly trying to "exploit" sales? If the inventors knew the 2003 offer to test could be seen as an invalidating sale and they were trying to "deceive" the patent office by hiding the offer, it makes no sense for them to not file in early 2004.
Plumtree requires every method claim to be disclosed. This information wasn't in the offer to test letter since they hadn't determined the method claims and hadn't proved it would work.
Keep Up The Fight, We Are In The Right!
Good Luck To All!$!$
