GreenShift Response

Here is the GreenShift response to the last filing concerning Mr. Cantrell's statement and the one year prior sale discussion.  The SkunK tried to cut out the heart of the new argument and post it below:

*********************

"The simple point made by CleanTech in the unrelated filing is that, as a matter of law, the letter falls outside the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was delivered after the critical date. That does not translate into an admission by Plaintiff that if it was delivered prior to the critical date it is an invalidating offer for sale under § 102(b). Even if the letter was delivered prior to the critical date - which it wasn't - the letter is not material because it does not constitute an offer for sale of the invention under § 102 (b).

Further, it is black-letter law that “[t]he filing of an information disclosure statement shall not be construed to be an admission that the information cited in the statement is, or is considered to be, material to patentability as defined in § 1.56(b).” 37 CFR §1.97(h). Nevertheless, Defendants’ reference to the Cantrell Declaration and the July 31, 2003 letter is improper and must be stricken from their consolidated Opposition."

SEE all 15 pages HERE

SkunK

It seems to me GreenShift handed them a nice table cloth for the "defendents table".  The defendents proceded to set their table with their best china and crystal on top of that tablecloth.  Next GreenShift got permission to take back the tablecloth.  One huge GreenShift pull!!!!! Now what a heck of a legal mess the defendants are left to clean up.   Glass chards and broken china.  Not much left to "set" up their legal arguments . . .