tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3055792023653340346..comments2024-03-28T13:45:42.289+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Of pigs and centrifuges: the story can be toldVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76723311536563606392008-09-13T06:16:00.000+01:002008-09-13T06:16:00.000+01:00It is central to Fritz Amstrups patent that the ce...It is central to Fritz Amstrups patent that the centrifugation of pig happening in a specific period of about <B>110 seconds</B> and by the specific temperature for slaughtering. The result is that the intestines are cleaned of fat and not "threadbare" and perforated. Therefore, they are appropriate for sausages.<BR/><BR/>In one of trials in slaughterhouses Tican in Thisted, the DAT Schaub, as if the process was carried out with a default of 240 seconds with cold casings. There were attempts to turnaround the 200, 220, 240, 260 and 280 seconds. Here was the result that all the casings were "threadbare" and perforated.<BR/><BR/>On the background the valuer (skønsmændene), "that as far as degreasing the extremity of the grease (fedtender) and shives (tyktarme) is not possible to register a quality as a function of processing time."<BR/><BR/>The conclusion and trying to lay the basis for it, is, according to Fritz Amstrup and his lawyer so far from the truth that is the basis of a report to the police because DAT Schaub therefore deliberately tried to mislead the valuer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84308761095094917592008-09-11T13:17:00.000+01:002008-09-11T13:17:00.000+01:00Considering the parameters being so specific (700 ...Considering the parameters being so specific (700 rpm for exactly 29 seconds), couldn't this be argued on grounds of surprising effect?<BR/><BR/>I cannot tell if the cited French patent was this exact, yet as it was not automated I would not be surprised if it claimed a wide span in processing time.<BR/><BR/>The Danish PTO does appear to have accepted precision as central in its decision of 1981-03-25. Seems however the basis for amendments were a bit thin on the ground, too hasty patents drafting perhaps?<BR/><BR/>The opposition history makes me wonder about the judgments at the Danish PTO, they seem easily persuaded by any party.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com