IMO is examiners's mistake of date of prior art, this emanated from an aboandoned application, the examiner had this info the entire time, etc....examiner used date of this app, 2006, instead of 2004 abandoned parent....again imo, and simple...

IMO our encryption is good to go in this lowly form's opinion......

imo, it is possible that we have all kinds of revenue sources if /when this is patented, back to 2004................hmmmmmmmmmmm..

the source of this opinion is a green cartoon character. ...consider the source

11/522,000 System and method for securely transmitting data to a multimedia device E6182-00008

Parent Continuity Data DescriptionParent NumberParent Filing or 371(c) DateParent StatusPatent Number This application is a Division of 10/938,060 09-09-2004 Abandoned - Child Continuity Data No Child Continuity Data Found

If you