Okay, I'm about to go off on a further delusional exercise in probable futility (but there is some "non-delusional" stuff in here too). The PTO Contingency Theory still haunts me. IMO, it is the only thing that would explain/give rise to the many "weirdnesses" (10-20). Yes, the company said no contingency deals. But if they said there were, wouldn't that have pretty much blown the Confidentiality Clause in the settlement with the Js?

That said, here's what I'm thinking with regard to GE's great DD and the possibility/probability that TPL "fed" the PTO this latest prior art contention.

If the PTO Contingency Theory were in play, with the "real" payment from the Js (plus the unreported money from the licensees from February) being contingent on a positive PTO outcome, what would happen if we did get that outcome on existing claims of prior art at that time, and another (like that now being examined) popped up? (introduced by a third party). Would everything get fouled up? Would monies tendered have to be returned until still another obstacle was overcome, possibly two years later?

Now look back at what's happened, timing wise. The PTO was "persuaded" by TPL re: former claims of prior art way back in February. So what stopped the PTO from wrapping things up THEN? They said that TPL's response was "persuasive", so what was the hold up? Four months to do what?

Just maybe, back in February, at that meeting between TPL/Moore and the PTO examiner where he was "persuaded" on the prior claims of pior art, TPL fed these new possibilities for review. The file then went back into queue (bottom of the pile) for a couple of months, then the examiner "examined". That series of questions in the latest non-final weren't put together over night - it took some time and investigation.

Why would TPL do this? Not only to solidify the patents as many have addressed, but possibly, IMO, to prevent possible problems in enforcement of the MOU with the Js (and possibly simto MOUs with others) assuming there's something to my delusions.

Here I envision how that/those MOUs were probably worded per my delusions. I suspect that they would be worded around success with the PTO, but I further suspect that they would have been silent re: specific prior art claims. Hence the looming problem with enforcement if more prior art claims were introduced at a later date. A pro-active approach was the only real option, even if in doing so it was known to TPL that these new prior art claims were far-fetched and easily defeated. They were the "hanging chad" in wrapping things up for good.

And those last two words are key in this thought process, with or without consideration of the possibility that my PTO Contingency Theory delusions hold any water.

If GE's DD and conclusions/opinions are right, it would appear that these latest prior art claims are the only things left "out there" per all the (presumeably massive) research done by TPL.

If my above "timing of events" suggestion is correct, that means TPL either already had counterarguments in hand at the time of the "feeding", or in the worst case they've had 4-5 months to prepare.

If my PTO Contingency Theory delusions hold any water, then the importance of taking this pro-active approach is greatly elevated. There was no real choice - it had to be done.

On the latter "if", I could go back and revisit some of those "weirdnesses" I addressed in the past, with this new set of ideas in mind, and they are even better explained - beyond but in concert with the delusions.

Heck - I'll go ahead and throw out a couple of examples. The PTSC self-imposed trading restrictions, and Turley's departure.

Trading restrictions because PTSC honestly thought that PTO (at least the '148) would be wrapped up shortly after the planned meeting between TPL and the PTO, and then money would flow.

Turley hears that TPL is now (then) feeding more ammo to the PTO, throws up his hands in disgust, thinking this could go on forever ("is TPL going to do this "feeding" again and again?") - preventing him from pursuing his plans, and elects to bail. This fits with JT's parting words.

Just some wild food for thought. Again, much of this makes sense even if the delusions don't hold water.

Enjoy the Holiday weekend.

Having made this post that includes some delusional thoughts, I don't think I can claim to have experienced the 4th in a "Safe and Sane" fashion. Oh well.... since I've blown it, where did I put those M-80s, Roman Candles and bottle rockets? LOL

SGE