Over 5 years ago . . .

The way the SkunK sees it

It now appears that the non-patented COES crowd is hanging their defense on this rusty nail:  They are trying to claim prior art - not of some prior inventor - but of the GreenShift inventors themselves?  That's right, even through we see claims that the GreenShift COES patents were obvious, it seems they were only obvious to the GreenShift inventors.  Why else would you base your claims of prior art - and therefore your defense against infringement - on the prior art of the GreenShift inventors themselves?

How can that be?

Apparently anything discovered by the inventors up to a year before a provisional patent was applied for, is protected under the provisional patent.  Then if a patent is tied to that provisional and that patent is issued, no one can claim the prior art of the inventors within that previous year.  It appears the inventors were looking to deploy their 'work in progress' at an Ethanol plant in the fall of 2003.  They wrote a letter to Agri-Energy dated 31 July 2003 in which they offered to put in a "test module" "oil recovery system".  Cantrell makes a statement and offers evidence that letter was not mailed, but hand delivered by him to Agri-Energy 18 August 2003.  That date is important since the provisional patent dates back to 17 Aug 2004.  Any disclosure made by him  to Agri-Energy would then be under the protection of the provisional - and therefore the subsequent patent.  I am NOT a patent lawyer and this is just my attempt to understant all this.  If you have an insight, please feel free to leave a comment below.

If the patented process had been offered for sale more than one-year before the non-provisional filing date, the patent could be invalid under the statutory bar section of 35 U.S.C. 102(b) unless the patent is entitled to the filing date of the provisional application.  It is explained better here

"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
. . . (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or. . ." 

 Cantrell Statement and Agri Energy Letter  (I got this through a previous filings in the "patent public porthole".)

ICM's Amended Complaint  See end of page 5 and page 6.

SkunK

PS.  WOW - this thing has more twists and turns - and plots and sub plots - than the Minnesota Viking's Locker room!