Paul....shouldn't be long now.

I disagree that we have nothing to fear from the re-exam.

Patterson & Sheridan, LLP are the attorneys for HTC Corporation that requested the re-exam. After reading their 83-page re-examination document sent to the USPTO, I have to say I'm a little more uncomfortable now.

They make a compelling argument toward invalidating claims 1-5 and 18-19 of our '774 patent. They are citing prior art and prior publications issued/published before our '774 patent was filed that they say invalidate our claims. They cite prior art & publications that were not considered during the original prosecution of the '774 patent, such as:

· “Development of an IC-Card Sound Recorder” (Kimura et al) published in Vol. 55 of the Sharp Technical Journal in March, 1993

· EP Patent Application No. 0536792 A2 (Sharp) published April, 1993

· U.K. Patent Publication No. GB 2253078A (Radamec) published Aug, 1992

· U.S. Patent No. 5,442, 768 (Sukoh et al.) filed Nov, 1992 and issued Nov, 1995

· U.S. Patent Application No. 5, 267, 218 (Elbert) filed Mar, 1992 and issued Nov, 1993 (NOTE: The Elbert prior art was considered by the patent examiner during the patent prosecution and ultimately considered moot.)

I continue to have faith in James Sze, Pat Nunnally and DM and their exhaustive DD before they took this case. I’m certain they would have considered the above prior art before taking our case on contingency. They surely must have anticipated a defendant would request a USPTO patent re-exam (it only costs $2,520 fer’ cryin’ out loud!) and must have felt the patent would hold up to the new scrutiny.

Sheesh, sure am glad that after 10 years of holding, we’re going to get some definite answers in the next 3 months. USPTO re-exam decision this month (if the 3-month deadline is met); Markman Hearing this month which I’ll be attending; Markman decision likely before the March, 2011 annual shareholder’s meeting.