Okay, here we go , does prior art mean the patents are invalid or does it simply mean that the co.s we sue are not quite as liable as we say they are?? Now there have been many patents applied for on many procedures that have been in use for years that have been allowed because nobody thought to apply for one, how about that? This thing about prior art is way over blown and simply a reuse to try to dissuade a judge or jury to see things in their favor but has no real legal bearing on anything but to maybe cut the damages down a little bit or a lot. If there was such a real thing as prior art after the fact a patent would not be allowed. Is this crap or what. It seems to me that if somebody claims prior art, they should have to sue the patent office (yuk yuk), but then our litigation should proceed as if nothing happened. Boy am I confused or what, I just feel that prior art is nothing more than a stall. GLTAL RJ