God Bless anybody who wants to use that Prevost Method

For a long time I read about Prevost in the Defendat's Filings.  Prevost was some kind of big deal that the Defendant's were all depending on.  The storyline goes something like this:  Somehow the Patent Examiners were asleep at the wheel and GreenShift had talked their way into a whole family of patents.  When this thing got before a judge, the defendants would all be exonerated of infringement - mostly, if not all due to Prevost. 

Now I find out Prevost wasn't even a patent.  It was a patent application.  It processed something that is described as a powder.  It used solvents.   It really was not the same as the Greenshift family of COES patents.  It could hardly be used to invalidate the GreenShift patents as obvious.  The judge called [at least a significant portion, if not the basis] of the defendant's position on Prevost ". . . completely without support . . . "

Here are some points made by the GreenShift lawyer:
". . . what's claimed in Prevost is a substance that is 15 percent or less. That's described as a free-flowing powder, not a syrup, not some other substance; and that's why they use solvent extraction. Again, God bless anybody who wants to use that Prevost method . . ."

"But a fundamental distinction is that Prevost is under 15 percent water. All of the claims here are more than 30 percent or there's some other fundamental distinction. So that's an important distinction, and that's what hadn't been done in the past was that the grains have been reduced -- the thin stillage have been reduced by evaporation or by concentration to somewhere in that sweet spot that is claimed within this patent; and I submit that all of the defendants are within that range, not practicing Prevost." Markman Transcript p. 127-128
*******************
After reading the arguments in the transcript these words from the Court ring even clearer in the actual Markman ruling from last fall:

"The Court disagrees with Defendants’ characterization of the ‘858 patent’s prosecution history. The Court could not find any statements in the prosecution history to indicate that Applicants limited their methods to the recovery of oil alone, free from water and solids. Indeed, Applicants do distinguish their claimed methods from Prevost, but they do so explicitly on the grounds that their claimed method teaches a post-evaporation process for recovering oil from the concentrate using heat and mechanical processing."

"Defendants’ assumptions regarding the grounds on which Applicants distinguished from Prevost are completely without support in the record of the prosecution history." Markman ruling page 22-23
 
SkunK

PS (Inside Baseball) We finally got the "War Hero" reference made in a follow on filing explained.

This is to nobody in particular.  So please let him know.  Here is a new name that I recently entered on the right side of the blog listed under "Technicians and Magicians".  No idea if related to Edward Carroll.   Only two primary references in the public record, Here and (I am proud of this second one)  HERE (do a find on "Carroll"  and look at all the info in the second hit!)

Mary J. Carroll - Worked in GreenShift Administration since at least December of 2003. Presently GreenShift Vice President of Administration.