Experienced Primary Examiners

In an effort to find investors and Ethanol Industry stakeholders a little insight on the ongoing patent litigation the SkunK though he would dig a little deeper.  GreenShift insists that ICM  and Westfalia  do not deny infringement.  I have not found a direct denial of this claim.  Here is the center of the argument as set up in the GreenShift Annual report:

"The Company estimates that as many as 40 ethanol producers are infringing the Company’s patents. ICM has not denied in its pleadings that its equipment has been sold and is being used in a manner covered by the patents. GEA Westfalia’s pleadings also suggest that it admits that the Company’s patent claims cover processes utilized by ethanol producers that have purchased GEA Westfalia’s equipment."  p.19

What the SkunK believes this means in simple terms is this:  In order to invalidate an issued patent by way of prior art, one has to basically prove that the US Patent office did not do their job.  They have to prove that the information was already out there - or in use.  That is a claim that the Patent Office missed this Prior Art and failed to do exactly what they are supposed to do - ensure that any patent issued deserves to be a patent. 

First of all GreenShift counters this claim with:

"Rather, both parties rely upon arguments that the Company’s patents are invalid based upon prior art that has been considered and rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). The Company believes these arguments have been fully considered and rejected by the PTO."

SkunK - Do we have any evidence of this happening? 
If one goes to the first patent HERE and goes to the "Other References" section one will note that the first three references were cited by the patent examiner.  The next 15 references were "cited by other".  The SkunK figures that this includes the so called prior art submitted by those who challenged the patent.  Since we are looking at an issued patent - the SkunK can safely figure that the challenges based on those references failed.  The fact that they are cited and recorded in the patent lends powerful credence that they were "considered and rejected" as GreenShift claims.

SkunK - So what if the references were enough to prove prior art but the Patent Examiner got it wrong? 
Sounds like your suggesting an inexperience Patent Examiner?  The Primary Examiner of the '858 patent is Deborah D Carr.  She has been a Primary Examiner for at least 10 years as you can see HERE.  She worked as an Assistant Examiner at the Patent Office on a patent filed at least 20 years ago as you can see HERE.    Overall she has been the Primary Examiner on some 770 patents as you can see HERE.  She worked as an assistant examiner on another 434 patents as you can see HERE.  No inexperience found.

Well SkunK, even experience can make mistakes.
Possible, however the odds get cut in half when you realize that the same patent examiner did not research both patents.  So in order for the claim of missed prior art to be true you must assume that both missed it - even after those who challanged the patent gave it to them.  Porfirio Nazario Gonzalez was the Primary Examiner for the second patent.  He has been a Primary examiner for 136 patents going back well over 15 years. 

In conclusion, it appears we have supporting evidence that not only were prior art claims presented to the PTO before the patent was issued, but the prior art was examined and rejected by more than one EXPERIENCED Primary Patent ExaminerS.
 
SkunK

How to read a patent