Archive for December, 2007
Warning: Use of undefined constant archives - assumed 'archives' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
/home/customer/www/greenpatentblog.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/cordobo-green-park-2/archive.php on line
32
Warning: Use of undefined constant page - assumed 'page' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
/home/customer/www/greenpatentblog.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/cordobo-green-park-2/archive.php on line
32
Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in
/home/customer/www/greenpatentblog.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/cordobo-green-park-2/archive.php on line
32
class="post-32 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-hybrid-vehicles">
December 30th, 2007
Though not an intellectual property matter, California’s recent battles with automakers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Â are worth a post because of the potential impact on clean vehicle technology.Â
The federal Clean Air Act preempts state regulation of motor vehicle emissions but provides that California may apply to the EPA for a waiver to impose rules more stringent than the federal regulations.  Other states cannot apply for a waiver, but they may adopt any California standards enacted pursuant to its waiver. In 2002 California passed Assembly Bill 1493, which required the California Air Resources Control Board (CARB) to enact regulations to achieve maximum reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. In 2004, CARB completed the regulations, which provide strict emissions standards for passenger cars and light duty trucks starting with the 2009 model year.Â
Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers sued to block the regulations from taking effect. The automakers’ main argument was based on the doctrine of preemption, which holds that a federal law trumps a conflicting or inconsistent state law. Specifically, the automakers contended that even if California were granted a waiver by the EPA, its emissions standards would still be state regulations subject to preemption. The court disagreed and held, consistent with the outcome of a similar case in Vermont, that state regulations enacted in accordance with the Clean Air Act’s waiver scheme become “federalized” and are therefore not subject to federal preemption. Thus, California’s vehicle emissions standards were legally viable; the state just needed the green light from the EPA.
Unfortunately, the EPA denied California’s request for a waiver to enact its emissions regulations. (read the story here) The agency’s rationale is that greenhouse gases are not a local or regional air quality issue, but are “global in nature” so separate state standards are not needed. The EPA pointed to the energy bill just signed by President Bush as part of a national solution to emissions problems. It seems California has lost the latest battle over its emissions standards, but future litigation seems likely – the chair of the California Air Resources Board plans to “sue and sue again” until the EPA lets the state go forward.
: Use of undefined constant archives - assumed 'archives' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
: Use of undefined constant page - assumed 'page' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
class="post-30 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-biofuels-biomaterials category-waste-management">
Restaurant TechnologiesÃÂ owns a patent forÃÂ aÃÂ waste cooking oil removal system.ÃÂ The invention disclosed inÃÂ U.S. Patent No. 5,249,511ÃÂ can distribute and meterÃÂ fresh oil, filter and recirculate used oil, andÃÂ remove and store waste oil.ÃÂ The system eliminates the need for manual handling of hot oil and the need to filter and dispose of the oil at selected intervals.ÃÂ The system includes a filter station, a fryer station with a pair of valves, a supply station with a storage tank andÃÂ an entrance and exit valve,ÃÂ andÃÂ a waste station comprising a receptacle and an entrance and exit valve.ÃÂ The stations are connected by piping, and a valve controllerÃÂ selects the pipe path among the stations.ÃÂ The system can be operated electronically or manually; the operator either uses a microprocessor or a manual network of push-pull knobs to open and shut the appropriate valvesÃÂ and effect the desired operation.
Restaurant Technologies sued ÃÂ and Klee’s Bar & GrillÃÂ in U.S. District Court in New Jersey for using an allegedly infringing oil supply system.ÃÂ The accused equipment was provided by Oilmatic,ÃÂ which came to the defense of its customers and sued Restaurant Technologies for unfair competition, antitrust violations and a declaratory judgment that itsÃÂ system did not infringe the ‘511 patent.ÃÂ The Oilmatic systemÃÂ consists ofÃÂ a fresh oil tank, a waste oil tank, piping connected to pumps, a waste pipe nozzleÃÂ and a dipstick nozzle to fill or remove cooking oil from a fryer vat.ÃÂ The user controls operations by turning a switch on the dipstick nozzle to “fill”, “off” or “drain” and pressing a pump start/stopÃÂ button.
The claims of the patent include theÃÂ terms “control means” for operating the valves and selectingÃÂ a pipe path and “means for metering oil” to the fryer.ÃÂ These terms are written in accordance with theÃÂ “means-plus-function” provision of U.S. patent law, which permits a patentee to draft claims that recite a function to be performed without also reciting in the claims the structure needed to perform the function.ÃÂ The patentee must disclose corresponding structure elsewhere in the patent.ÃÂ A “means-plus-function” claim term is interpreted by determiningÃÂ which structure disclosed in the written description of the patent corresponds to the function recited in the patent claims.
The court determined that the corresponding structure for the “control means” includes microprocessor controlsÃÂ and the manual push-pull knob network.ÃÂ The court held the Oilmatic system does not satisfy this claim element because it has no microprocessor controls and the dipstick switch and button is substantially different from Restaurant Technologies’ knob network.ÃÂ The court found that the corresponding structure for the “means for metering oil” is a trigger valve with a nozzle which opens when the valve is squeezed.ÃÂ Although the Oilmatic systemÃÂ uses a nozzle, it does not employ a squeezable valve.ÃÂ Instead, oil is supplied to the fryer by pushing the start buttonÃÂ on the dipstick to turn on the fresh oil pump, which operates by shaft rotation, not squeezing.ÃÂ Therefore, the court found that the Oilmatic system does not infringe the ‘511 patent.ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
Systems like those provided by Restaurant Technologies and Oilmatic could work synergistically with the business model of companies like New Leaf Biofuel, which collects waste cooking oil from restaurants and uses it as raw material for biodiesel production.ÃÂ Waste oil recovery technology could help to increase the supply of raw materials for biodiesel and improve the pathway from the frying pan to the gas tank.ÃÂ