Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Still Here

I just checked Pacer, SEC nothing to report.  I see the last post has been awhile.  Thought I would post something, just to let everyone know I am still walking my post.  Rumors of my passing are true, but hopefully a few decades early.

SkunK

2 comments:

Slashnuts said...

Beware Of The Person With Two Faces...

The court invalidated the 30% claim and rewrote the <15% water limitation because it didn't believe it would work below 40%.

Quote:

"The district court invalidated the “30%” moisture claims, because it found
“[t]here is simply no testimony from any expert that . . . a centrifuge will recover oil from syrup with a moisture content below 40% and there is no specific disclosure to enable one of ordinary skill . . . to practice the invention below that
threshold.”
……

How can that be when multiple experts testified otherwise? If that ruling wasn't clear error, then why was ICM centrifuging oil from syrup with a moisture content of 5%-30%?
From the AOS patent...


1. A method comprising:dewatering a bio-oil process stream from a biomass processing facility with a mechanical processor to produce a de-oiled process stream and an emulsion concentrate

2.The method of claim 1 wherein the process stream is a concentrated stillage having a moisture content of about 5% by weight, up to less than 30% by weight and the de-oiled process stream is de-oiled concentrated stillage.

4.The method of claim 1 wherein the mechanical processor is a centrifuge

http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/US-8192627-B2?ft=true

Defendants convinced the district court that Prevost's limitation of centrifuging oil from syrup with <15% water was "an obvious error" because it would be too difficult at that moisture level and it wouldn't flow.

However, the very same Prevost application teaches centrifuging DDGS with a moisture content as low as 10%. ICM is even lower with syrup at 5%.

Quote:

"The dried distillers grains can be subjected to an oil removal step.. Non-limiting examples of oil removal techniques that can be used include centrifugation, pressing with and without the use of a solvent, and solvent extraction without the use of pressing."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040087808

It's obvious Prevost didn't discover centrifuging oil from syrup in the 30%-90% range. If he did he wouldn't have been messing around with centrifuging oil from DDGS or non-concentrated stillage.

Slashnuts said...

Prevost teaches centrifuging oil from syrup with <15% moisture and/or from DDGS with 10%-12% moisture.

ICM teaches centrifuging oil from syrup with 5%-30% moisture.

GreenShift teaches centrifuging from 30%-90%, ideally from 60%-85%.

I have a few questions:

*What % of moisture syrup was specified in the offer to test? 5%? 15%? 90%?
*Did the offer to test specify if the evaporation and subsequent centrifuging should occur in a continuous fashion or was it batch mode?
*Did the offer to test require the de-oiled syrup to be dried further?
*If the test was to centrifuge from say 5% syrup, would further drying still be required?

*In 2003, did Barlage separate oil from syrup with a centrifuge in a continuous fashion or in batch mode with the table-top tester?
*How much time did he spend repeatedly cleaning the clogged centrifuge VS operating it?
*Since the test took hours, what temperature was the syrup? Did it cool and was it re-heated?
*Was the de-oiled syrup dried further after the test?

*How many companies in the history of the industry paid $423,000 for a completed oil extraction system?
*If the point of the letter was to generate income, how was that supposed to happen when they didn't even own the centrifuge offered for sale?
*What's the cost of an Alfa-Laval disk-stacked centrifuge? The rest of the system? The labor?
*What type of profit margin was to be made and don't these systems typically cost millions?
*If an inventor is looking to test whether his idea will work for it's intended purpose, under actual conditions, in a continuous fashion, without clogging and if that inventor doesn't own an ethanol plant or a centrifuge, how can he motivate a 3rd party to facilitate with testing?

*Why would the offer require confidentiality to discoveries made during the test if it was ready for patenting?
*If Agri-Energy accepted the offer, what's a reasonable amount of time to test and see if the system worked? 60 seconds? 60 minutes? 60 days?
*Why did they ask Agri-Energy to keep it confidential? Wouldn't they want everyone to know about it?
*If the inventors were trying to commercially exploit their invention and aggressively pursuing sales, why was Agri-Energy the only company talked to for a year?
*Why were there no sales or marketing efforts until after the successful 2004 test?

Good Luck To All!$!$

 
Free Blog CounterTamron