Replies to post #11257 on Nexus Energy Services Inc (IBGR)

[Bucks4Buckeyes]

Looking at the patents themselves...

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5723453

and

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=PHYKITT.INNM.&OS=IN/PHYKITT&RS=IN/PHYKITT

One is a patent on the method of preparing it
And the other is a patent on the mixture itself

The last few statements on each claim

While a presently preferred and various alternative embodiments of the invention have been described in detail above, various other adaptations and modifications of the invention can be made by persons who are skilled in the drug art without departing from either the spirit of the invention or the scope of the appended claims

I know Howard claimed his patent lawyer was very particular in his patent claims.

What I don't understand is a quote from the valuation:

Although the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has not approved the patent on the Aquaprin™ patent application (typical patent pendency periods of U.S. patent applications are on the order of 2-1/2 to 3 years), the claims of this application effectively cover the Aquaprin™ product and in light of prior studies of the prior art and the clear basis of distinction of the claims over the disclosures in the prior art, there is seen to be no impediment to issuing effective claims to the Aquaprin™ product in a U.S. patent.

Perhaps this is the 'trademark' application for the terms AQUAPRIN, INSTAPRIN, etc.

You got me interested now, CHEYENNE1, I think I will email them myself and find out. Good point of clarification.

All The Best