Rest Here:
http://www.greenshift.com/pdf/cardinal_infringement.pdf
AND READ THE MULTIPLE PAGES!
or
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10680607/1/greenshift-subsidiary-sues-cardinal-ethanol-llc-for-patent-infringement.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEFI
BIG NEWS!
You gotta read this part above. Hopefully it will get bigger if you click it - but the NEW NEWS here is our inventors disclosed the technology to ICM. ICM executed a Confidentiality Agreement with the Dave Winsness and bought two authorized systems from the inventors!!! WHoa! Do ya think that might have an effect on the proceedings???? I am guessing it might!(page 22 of the 51 pages in the PDF file)Apparently the Patent Office heard and rejected ICM's claims of "Prior Art". The patent examiner had ICM's arguments prior to issuing the patent. Does this information make the Patent more secure in the normal investor's mind? Well, I have never been called "normal" lol, but it does appear to secure the patent from any "prior art**" argument from ICM!
**Definition: Prior art is all information that has been disclosed to the public in any form about an invention before a given date. Prior art includes things like any patents related to your invention, any published articles about your invention, and any public demonstrations. Patent law states "On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention." This means that prior art could disqualify your application for a patent.SkunK
Posts
