Thursday, August 15, 2013


See Here



Slashnuts said...

Defendants’ Assumptions Completely Without Support

Most important, the revised claim construction that ICM has dodged publicly reveals that their past rhetoric has exposed them as too big for their britches. The Prevost "prior art" argument was dreamed up in Kansas, but never made it out Colwich.

"..NOTHING in the context of the prosecution history indicates that Defendants’ presumption is correct."

ICM's Assertion:
"Most important the claim construction analysis that Plaintiffs have dodged, both publicly and before this Court, will require Plaintiffs to explain to this Court how the methods for corn oil recovery claimed in the ‘858 patent can be as broad as Plaintiffs’ rhetoric asserts when the exact same method is completely and identically disclosed in one prior art reference, namely, Prevost."

Court's Answer:
"Therefore, to distinguish itself from Prevost, Plaintiff clearly disclaimed that the heating that occurs as
part of the oil recovery step occurred at any time prior to or as a part of the evaporation or concentrating step."

Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$

Slashnuts said...

Defendants “Presume”..NOTHING Indicates the Presumptions are Correct.

Most important, construction of the '858 patent has exposed ICM's failure to explain how their precious little Prevost is prior art. "There's tons of prior art"(ICM 2009)

ICM's Assertion:
"Most important, construction of the ‘858 patent will expose Plaintiffs’ failure to explain how the ‘858
patent claims differentiate from the clear teaching of Prevost U.S. Patent Application Publication
No.US2004/0087808 (“Prevost”) to obtain oil from concentrated thin stillage by centrifugation."

Court's Answer:
"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."

Court's Answer:"Defendants also cite Applicants’ statements regarding evaporation freeing some of the bound oil and how Minowa in combination with Prevost fail to teach or suggest “recovering the oil from the concentrated byproduct by heating and mechanically processing the concentrated byproduct to separate the oil from the concentrated byproduct.” Neither of these statements reference the recovery of oil free from water and solids. Indeed, Defendants state that they “presume” that is what Applicants were referencing. However nothing in the context of the prosecution history indicates that Defendants’ presumption is correct. Defendants’ assumptions regarding the grounds on which Applicants distinguished from Prevost are completely without support in the record of the prosecution history."

The Patents Will Prevail!$!$!$!$

nobody123789 said...

In case you didn't already know someone is paying for this weak buzz:

"Brilliant Innovators (USA) LLC and has been retained by an unrelated third party to perform marketing and advertising services for a limited time with respect to the company we are profiling or discussing on this website and in exchange for such services has received cash compensation from such third party - See more at:"

nobody123789 said...

Unfortunately, it isn't easy to discern the real Nobody and the hijacked moniker by the quality of the composition and command of the English language. The original has been counterfeited.

Anonymous said...

why is there another claim construction on the menu?

Free Blog CounterTamron