- 25 -
I specifically asked people who were knowledgeable
in the area whether they knew of anybody in that area,
that anybody had produced. And, the answer was no.
So I felt that from a technology standpoint that
[PI] had worked on something unique.
Petitioner acknowledged that he was familiar with other plastics
recycling machines, such as the Foremost Densilator, Buss/Condux
Plastcompactor, Cumberland Granulator, and the Regenolux.
Nonetheless, he contends that he understood from Celanese
personnel that there was no recycler comparable to the Sentinel
EPE recycler, and that he was unaware of any advertisements or
articles pertaining to any comparable machines in any of the
plastics industry trade journals.
However, respondent's expert witnesses, Richard S. Lindstrom
(Lindstrom) and Steven Grossman (Grossman), testified otherwise.
Lindstrom, who consulted in plastics and plastics equipment at
Arthur D. Little, Inc. from 1956 until 1989, testified that
"there were available in 1981 commercial units that could be
purchased for $50,000 or less that were totally equal to the
Sentinel EPE Recycler in function, product quality, and
capacity." Grossman, who has a Ph.D. in Polymer Science and
Engineering and was at the time a professor of Plastics
Engineering at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, testified
that the Sentinel EPE recycler "represented no new technology to
the plastics recycling industry at the time of its offering", and
that comparable and "more efficient technology was available to
recycle film/foam polyethylene scrap." See Gottsegen v.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011