Some of the commentary on the blog questions prior art and a lack of reference.

"Patents 5,787,445 and 5,839,108 both referenced a bunch of sophomore level data structures textbooks, mostly from the late 1980's. This is another way of saying that the patentees tried to present no prior art at all, but that the patent examiner, probably a recent college graduate, checked the obvious places in his ten hours or so of allotted time for examination, and found some prior art, but not enough."

There is no lack of prior art, they actually go through the process of explaining the exact differences for one of the leaders within the industry within the realm of what they patented.

This person may feel the prior art example explained within the patents are insignificant and being but "sophomore level data structures" however, they were excepted as standards of the PCMCIA.

Using an excepted standard within the industry as prior art should weigh favorably for edig.

doni