InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 3
Posts 450
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/25/2009

Re: Slashnuts post# 34385

Wednesday, 04/24/2013 5:34:08 PM

Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:34:08 PM

Post# of 52841
Thanks to Jobynimble I found this post:
Court Issued Rulings Favor GreenShift

Defendants’ Assumptions Completely Without Support

"..NOTHING in the context of the prosecution history indicates that Defendants’ presumption is correct."

https://ecf.insd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?12010ml2181-169

ICM's Assertion:
"Most important the claim construction analysis that Plaintiffs have dodged, both publicly and before this Court, will require Plaintiffs to explain to this Court how the methods for corn oil recovery claimed in the ‘858 patent can be as broad as Plaintiffs’ rhetoric asserts when the exact same method is completely and identically disclosed in one prior art reference, namely, Prevost."

Court's Answer:
"Therefore, to distinguish itself from Prevost, Plaintiff clearly disclaimed that the heating that occurs as
part of the oil recovery step occurred at any time prior to or as a part of the evaporation or concentrating step."

ICM's Assertion:
"Most important, construction of the ‘858 patent will expose Plaintiffs’ failure to explain how the ‘858
patent claims differentiate from the clear teaching of Prevost U.S. Patent Application Publication
No.US2004/0087808 (“Prevost”) to obtain oil from concentrated thin stillage by centrifugation."

Court's Answer:
"Indeed, Applicants do distinguish their claimed methods from Prevost, but they do so explicitly on the grounds that their claimed method teaches a post-evaporation process for recovering oil from the concentrate using heat and mechanical processing."