<It would appear then that nullity request was not procedural, which is how it appeared, but based on how the patent was granted.>

Say what? How do you arrive at not procedural when gcduck's post clearly indicated that DT was claiming there were procedural errors in the patent filing?

In any case, the reason for my original post was to point out that none of the claims of the German patent had been challenged. IMO, DT was probably buying time to see whehter the 584, 148 and 336 sruvive the USPTO reexam process. That would make sense to me, since a challenge of the claims in Germany is decided by judges with technical background. Doubt DT would have been comfortable with that.

Opty