Thanks for your continued DD on the patents, as well as info to enable the ignorant (me) to do some research for ourselves.

I had posted some info yesterday (day before?) for which I wanted validation from you, eggbert and others, but I'm afraid that you've missed it what with all the avatar BS that went on (cluttering the board with OT so that posts that actually pertain to our investment get lost in the crowd - thank you so much).

Below is my second post pointing more directly at patent status:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I Ask Where?

I'm reposting part of my post from yesterday in a quest to confirm what I think are facts re: the '148 and '749. I KNOW some 12 people read that post and a few replied, but I didn't get any corrections if there were any to be had. Just want a reality check...

"My understanding is that the ‘148 and ‘749 are being handled by the same examiner and/or are being worked in concert.It is my further understanding that NIRCs on these two patents are imminent.While I had previously poo-poo’d the thought that NIRCs on these patents will “take us to .70”, after full consideration I suspect this is possible on their announcement.Why?Because these two patents, while not cited by the company as being as significant as the ‘336, IMO are equally significant (particularly the ‘148, IM ignorant O).And there is one thing very different in the re-cert of these patents than when we had the NIRC on the ‘336 from its prior re-exam, that being that we (and presumably those watching PTSC closely) knew that there was another re-exam request “in the wings” on the ‘336 when the NIRC was announced (not accepted, and perhaps not even reworked and re-submitted, but we knew it was out there, pending, leaving continued doubt/concern).That, to my knowledge, is not the case with either the ‘148 or ‘749.There is nothing known to be waiting in the wings on these. Thus, the ‘148 and ‘749 are not “encumbered” as was the ‘336 when its NIRC was announced.

Significance of the’148 and ‘749? Well, the’148 was included in the J2.5 litigation/settlement (and whatever delusional things could come of that), but my understanding is that the ‘148 is not included in the case with the T3.Conversely, my understanding is that the ‘749, while not directly part of the J2.5 litigation, is part of the T3 case.NIRCs on these two patents could make things happen (as I continue to contend that it only takes one – though in the case of the J2.5, I suspect that it would preferable to have both the ‘148 and ‘336 re-certed to cause action, if there is any action to be had by Judge Ward).Here I’m only talking on the past/instant litigation activities."

Is the "factual" (not specified delusional) info above correct?

TIA,

SGE

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, having said that, again, I do now understand that the above is wrong with respect to where we're at with the PTO on the '148, '749 (and '890). While the hoped for NIRC(s) is some day coming (again, we hope), it is not "imminent". The PTO has issued a new Non-Final (OA, presumably with more questions/need for response from the patent owner?). So are we now hoping that TPL provides an expedited response so that the examiner can proceed with actions towards an NIRC (assuming TPL is fully responsive and that their response resolves all concerns)?

I'm just looking for a reality check - I want to KNOW exactly where we're at here to the best our collective efforts can determine/effectively speculate. The input of you, eggbert, and others is essential. And this info should be on the forefront of everyone's minds. Status here is far more important (IMO) than anything PTSC alone is doing (their unilateral PDSG activities can IMO only produce a very limited income; peanuts in contrast with the real potential of PDS/the MMP).

TIA,

SGE