I am the SkunKhunter. I hunt down SkunK stocks. Those are stocks that have been beat down past any reasonable justification. I try to ride the stock up as market forces eventually right the ship of PPS. A SkunK is not a herd animal. He is a scavenger who knows that arriving before the herd means big profits and clean shoes. This is the journey of the GreenShift Corporation. Updated weekly between COB Friday and Sunday evening. (Disclaimers on Bottom of Site)
In 2003, Agri-Energy employees collected 4, 2-quart pitchers of syrup having a moisture content of between 70-80%.
80% moisture syrup is about 3.2% corn oil.
There's 3,785 milliliters in a gallon.
2 gallons of 80% moisture syrup would contain about 242 milliliters of oil.
The description of the 2003 testing is that a "small amount" of oil was extracted. Mr. Kreisler described it as a "few milliliters" of oil.
According to The District Court's claim construction, in order to practice the methods, the remaining de-oiled concentrate stream coming out of the centrifuge is substantially free of oil.
Quote:
“centrifuging the concentrate to recover oil” “processing the concentrate (as defined by the Court in this Order) with a centrifuge to separate the oil from the concentrate so that the oil stream coming out of the centrifuge is substantially oil and the remaining concentrate stream coming out of the centrifuge is substantially free of oil”
Quote:
“the syrup exiting the centrifuge is largely or mostly oil free compared to the incoming [syrup].”
GreenShift's position is that largely or mostly oil free means at least 50% of the oil is removed.
Extracting 51% of the available 242 milliliters of oil in the 2 gallon sample means at least 123 milliliters had to be extracted.
The Court adopted Rockstraw's opinion that 90% of the oil must be removed.
In other words, by The Court's own claim construction, Barlage would've had to extract 218 milliliters of oil in order for the remaining de-oiled concentrate to be largely or mostly oil free.
That obviously didn't happen. There was no reduction to practice on a claim by claim basis and this Court is ignoring the facts.
During the 2003 testing, Barlage wrote that "something in the evaporation process allows the oil to break down where it can be taken out easily. Further in plant testing is needed to determine the best methods".
They knew something was happening but what? Was it viscosity? Moisture content? Heat? What method were they supposed to patent at that point?
How could they be ready for patenting when they were still learning what was happening? They were trying to determine methods by more in plant testing and even talking about using 2 centrifuges.
Imagine going to the USPTO and applying for this patent after the 2003 test. GS: I would like to patent corn oil removal. USPTO: Ok, what's the method? GS: Something in the evaporation process allows the oil to be taken out. USPTO: Ok, do you have specifics like temperature, moisture, PH, viscosity, number of centrifuges? Is this a continuous process? GS: I don't know but something is happening! USPTO: Sounds like you have more testing to do...
On June 5th, 2003, Cantrell wrote about the potential of ethanol oil recovery. The prospects looked good but he questioned if they should extract before or after the evaporators. The information was to be kept confidential until they were ready so they could solicit the entire industry at once.
On June 10th, Winsness wrote something similar about the potentially large market in the ethanol industry. That they were shipping a centrifuge to an ethanol plant to test the theory. He also mentions confidentiality.
Quote:
We are keeping the details confidential until the test is complete and we are ready to solicit the entire market at once therefore we are keeping confidential until we are ready).
The following week, Barlage tested thin stillage in a centrifuge but the solids plugged it up. He then spun syrup in a test tube and observed some oil separation. He suggested a two step process would be needed. One centrifuge for solids, another to clean the oil. Also, more in-plant testing to determine the best methods.
Quote:
Something in the evaporation process allows for the product to breakdown to a level where the oil can be taken out easily. The possible methods for doing this separation would require two steps. First, a nozzle type centrifuge or decanter would be used to remove the heavy suspended solids. The liquid from here could be run to a secondary centrifuge where the oil is purified. The liquid from this centrifuge could be blended back with the solids or possibly evaporated further in the current evaporator. The solids from the first centrifuge would go to the drier as they do today. Further in plant testing will be required to fully determine the best method of commercialization for this process.
On June 29th, Cantrell wrote he was excited about the potential of oil extraction but he remained concerned about the solids plugging the machine. He again mentions the possibility of needing 2 machines and that more in-plant testing was needed to determine the methods.
He stated, Quote:
“After reviewing the first testing of the product, we are considering a nozzle machine, but a nozzle machine could have a tough time handling the solids a decanter and centrifuges may be necessary. “The next logical step is to do a small spin test at your plant with a Gyro tester and fresh product.””
The inventors knew the technology was available to extract the oil but they were still determining what the exact process/methods would be in an ethanol plant. Agri-Energy acknowledged they were to keep the testing confidential. The inventors wanted to market it to the whole industry simultaneously but not until they were ready.
In July 2003, employees at Agri-Energy collected 2 gallons of syrup at a temperature of 180 degrees. They brought the rapidly cooling syrup to the lab. *Like the thin stillage test, the centrifuge plugged. Repeatedly. *There's no mention in the record of a post evaporation heating step as required by the patent. *The sample sat, settled and cooled thus introducing variables non-representative of actual conditions. *It wouldn't take but a matter of minutes for the syrup to cool below the patented temperature range. Testing took 6 hours. *The evaporating and extraction of oil didn't occur in a continuous fashion. *The little gyro had much higher G-forces than a full size centrifuge, another unknown variable. *There's nothing in the record that the de-oiled syrup was substantial free of oil as required. *Nothing indicating de-oiled syrup was returned to the process stream for drying. *Agri-Energy was to keep the results confidential until the inventors were ready.
The inventors reached the limits of small scale testing. They needed to know if this would work in an operating ethanol plant, under actual conditions, without clogging the much lower G-force machine.
The offer to test letter's primary purpose was for experimentation. *As with the other testing, it asked Agri-Energy to keep the results confidential. *The inventors wanted to wait until they were ready and solicit to the entire industry at once. *The price was not representative of what these systems cost to make a profit, rather to cover the centrifuge, parts, piping costs.
The inventors knew they were close and assembled a sales and corn oil marketing team. The plan was to strike fast and solicit the entire industry at once. But not until they were ready and not until they knew it worked for it's intended purpose.
Testing continued in early 2004 when Agri-Energy first attempted to centrifuged thin stillage, effectively practicing Prevost's method. They were worried the solids in the syrup would again plug everything up so they started out at a very low feed rate of 2 GPM. They contemplated new centrifuges to deal with the solids.
*Cantrell congratulated Agri-Energy on a very successful first test. *The inventors repeatedly referred to Agri-Energy as their testing partner. *Cantrell noted that removing oil from syrup has never been done before. *Cantrell stated they couldn't know the results since the little gyro had much higher G-forces. *The inventors needed to run the syrup through a commercial test system to know if it worked for it's intended purpose without plugging. *Agri-Energy was offered the first system and early marketing benefits for their assistance in the 2004 testing. *The testing results were to be kept confidential until the inventors were ready to sell it to the entire industry at once. *Even in the May 2004 email, the inventor still contemplates whether they need a 2nd centrifuge for the process.
Quote:
Hello, First, let me congratulate you on a very successful first test. Remember, removing the oil from the syrup has never been done 'before. The initial testing at the lab was successful in removing the oil from the syrup after the evaporator but not before the evaporator. Since the table-top gyro has a much higher G force than the centrifuge, we could not know the outcome until we ran the syrup through a commercial test system. Also, it is VERY IMPORTANT to keep the test and testing results confidential. I am asking everyone included in this e-mail to honor this. Since Agri Energy is our testing partner, the first system and the benefits of early marketing opportunities will be offered to you for your assistance. The next step is to determine a testing protocol to answer the following questions...
The 2004 test was the first time they knew it would work for it's intended purpose. The inventors were waiting until testing was complete, until they were ready for patenting. The plan was to solicit the entire industry at once. A couple months after the successful first test, they filed for the patent. The inventors were confident in the methods. The inventors were finally ready. Shortly after the patent application was filed, in early 2005, the inventors solicited the entire industry at once in South Dakota. This is what the said they were going to do all along. Keep the testing results confidential until they refined the methods and were ready. Then, for the first time, offer to sell the invention to the entire industry as a whole.
"Keeping it confidential until we are ready so we can solicit the entire market at once."
Does anyone know how long the judges have to rule on the request?
ReplyDeleteTIA.
This Court Is Ignoring The Facts...
ReplyDeleteThe 2003 testing was not a reduction to practice.
In 2003, Agri-Energy employees collected 4, 2-quart pitchers of syrup having a moisture content of between 70-80%.
80% moisture syrup is about 3.2% corn oil.
There's 3,785 milliliters in a gallon.
2 gallons of 80% moisture syrup would contain about 242 milliliters of oil.
The description of the 2003 testing is that a "small amount" of oil was extracted. Mr. Kreisler described it as a "few milliliters" of oil.
According to The District Court's claim construction, in order to practice the methods, the remaining de-oiled concentrate stream coming out of the centrifuge is substantially free of oil.
Quote:
“centrifuging the concentrate to recover oil”
“processing the concentrate (as defined by the Court in this Order) with a centrifuge to separate the oil from the concentrate so that the oil stream coming out of the centrifuge is substantially oil and the remaining concentrate stream coming out of the centrifuge is substantially free of oil”
Quote:
“the syrup exiting the centrifuge is largely or mostly oil free compared to the incoming [syrup].”
GreenShift's position is that largely or mostly oil free means at least 50% of the oil is removed.
Extracting 51% of the available 242 milliliters of oil in the 2 gallon sample means at least 123 milliliters had to be extracted.
The Court adopted Rockstraw's opinion that 90% of the oil must be removed.
In other words, by The Court's own claim construction, Barlage would've had to extract 218 milliliters of oil in order for the remaining de-oiled concentrate to be largely or mostly oil free.
That obviously didn't happen. There was no reduction to practice on a claim by claim basis and this Court is ignoring the facts.
Good Luck To All!$!$
"Something In The Evaporation Process..."
ReplyDeleteDuring the 2003 testing, Barlage wrote that "something in the evaporation process allows the oil to break down where it can be taken out easily. Further in plant testing is needed to determine the best methods".
They knew something was happening but what? Was it viscosity? Moisture content? Heat? What method were they supposed to patent at that point?
How could they be ready for patenting when they were still learning what was happening? They were trying to determine methods by more in plant testing and even talking about using 2 centrifuges.
Imagine going to the USPTO and applying for this patent after the 2003 test.
GS: I would like to patent corn oil removal.
USPTO: Ok, what's the method?
GS: Something in the evaporation process allows the oil to be taken out.
USPTO: Ok, do you have specifics like temperature, moisture, PH, viscosity, number of centrifuges? Is this a continuous process?
GS: I don't know but something is happening!
USPTO: Sounds like you have more testing to do...
Good Luck To All!$!$
"Keeping It Confidential Until We Are Ready..."
ReplyDeleteOn June 5th, 2003, Cantrell wrote about the potential of ethanol oil recovery. The prospects looked good but he questioned if they should extract before or after the evaporators. The information was to be kept confidential until they were ready so they could solicit the entire industry at once.
On June 10th, Winsness wrote something similar about the potentially large market in the ethanol industry. That they were shipping a centrifuge to an ethanol plant to test the theory. He also mentions confidentiality.
Quote:
We are keeping the details confidential until the test is complete and we are ready to solicit the entire market at once therefore we are keeping confidential until we are ready).
The following week, Barlage tested thin stillage in a centrifuge but the solids plugged it up. He then spun syrup in a test tube and observed some oil separation. He suggested a two step process would be needed. One centrifuge for solids, another to clean the oil. Also, more in-plant testing to determine the best methods.
Quote:
Something in the evaporation process allows for the product to breakdown to a level where the oil can be taken out easily. The possible methods for doing this separation would require two steps. First, a nozzle type centrifuge or decanter would be used to remove the heavy suspended solids. The liquid from here could be run to a secondary centrifuge where the oil is purified. The liquid from this centrifuge could be blended back with the solids or possibly evaporated further in the current evaporator. The solids from the first centrifuge would go to the drier as they do today. Further in plant testing will be required to fully determine the best method of commercialization for this process.
On June 29th, Cantrell wrote he was excited about the potential of oil extraction but he remained concerned about the solids plugging the machine. He again mentions the possibility of needing 2 machines and that more in-plant testing was needed to determine the methods.
He stated,
Quote:
“After reviewing the first testing of the product, we are considering a nozzle machine, but a nozzle machine could have a tough time handling the solids a decanter and centrifuges may be necessary. “The next logical step is to do a small spin test at your plant with a Gyro tester and fresh product.””
The inventors knew the technology was available to extract the oil but they were still determining what the exact process/methods would be in an ethanol plant. Agri-Energy acknowledged they were to keep the testing confidential. The inventors wanted to market it to the whole industry simultaneously but not until they were ready.
ReplyDeleteIn July 2003, employees at Agri-Energy collected 2 gallons of syrup at a temperature of 180 degrees. They brought the rapidly cooling syrup to the lab.
*Like the thin stillage test, the centrifuge plugged. Repeatedly.
*There's no mention in the record of a post evaporation heating step as required by the patent.
*The sample sat, settled and cooled thus introducing variables non-representative of actual conditions.
*It wouldn't take but a matter of minutes for the syrup to cool below the patented temperature range. Testing took 6 hours.
*The evaporating and extraction of oil didn't occur in a continuous fashion.
*The little gyro had much higher G-forces than a full size centrifuge, another unknown variable.
*There's nothing in the record that the de-oiled syrup was substantial free of oil as required.
*Nothing indicating de-oiled syrup was returned to the process stream for drying.
*Agri-Energy was to keep the results confidential until the inventors were ready.
The inventors reached the limits of small scale testing. They needed to know if this would work in an operating ethanol plant, under actual conditions, without clogging the much lower G-force machine.
The offer to test letter's primary purpose was for experimentation.
*As with the other testing, it asked Agri-Energy to keep the results confidential.
*The inventors wanted to wait until they were ready and solicit to the entire industry at once.
*The price was not representative of what these systems cost to make a profit, rather to cover the centrifuge, parts, piping costs.
The inventors knew they were close and assembled a sales and corn oil marketing team. The plan was to strike fast and solicit the entire industry at once. But not until they were ready and not until they knew it worked for it's intended purpose.
ReplyDeleteTesting continued in early 2004 when Agri-Energy first attempted to centrifuged thin stillage, effectively practicing Prevost's method. They were worried the solids in the syrup would again plug everything up so they started out at a very low feed rate of 2 GPM. They contemplated new centrifuges to deal with the solids.
*Cantrell congratulated Agri-Energy on a very successful first test.
*The inventors repeatedly referred to Agri-Energy as their testing partner.
*Cantrell noted that removing oil from syrup has never been done before.
*Cantrell stated they couldn't know the results since the little gyro had much higher G-forces.
*The inventors needed to run the syrup through a commercial test system to know if it worked for it's intended purpose without plugging.
*Agri-Energy was offered the first system and early marketing benefits for their assistance in the 2004 testing.
*The testing results were to be kept confidential until the inventors were ready to sell it to the entire industry at once.
*Even in the May 2004 email, the inventor still contemplates whether they need a 2nd centrifuge for the process.
Quote:
Hello,
First, let me congratulate you on a very successful first test. Remember, removing the oil from the syrup has never been done 'before. The initial testing at the lab was successful in removing the oil from the syrup after the evaporator but not before the evaporator. Since the
table-top gyro has a much higher G force than the centrifuge, we could not know the outcome until we ran the syrup through a commercial test system. Also, it is VERY IMPORTANT to keep the test and testing results confidential. I am asking everyone included in this e-mail to honor this. Since Agri Energy is our testing partner, the first system and the benefits of early marketing opportunities will be offered to you for your assistance.
The next step is to determine a testing protocol to answer the following questions...
The 2004 test was the first time they knew it would work for it's intended purpose. The inventors were waiting until testing was complete, until they were ready for patenting. The plan was to solicit the entire industry at once. A couple months after the successful first test, they filed for the patent. The inventors were confident in the methods. The inventors were finally ready. Shortly after the patent application was filed, in early 2005, the inventors solicited the entire industry at once in South Dakota. This is what the said they were going to do all along. Keep the testing results confidential until they refined the methods and were ready. Then, for the first time, offer to sell the invention to the entire industry as a whole.
"Keeping it confidential until we are ready so we can solicit the entire market at once."
Good Luck To All!$!$
Slash, great info but year over year and month over month your posts have meant nothing... Zilch!
ReplyDeleteYou can't be dumb enough to think the judge reads this Blog, right?
I still can't help to think that there was some underhanded covering up regarding the offer to sell, bad memories, lost emails, changed dates, etc.
X corruption judges lawyers police take your pick
ReplyDelete