I appreciate your discussion and perserverance in addressing these issues, and offerrings of clarity.

I am interested in your take on something I brought up up the other day, that having to do with WHY did our opposition (and Pubpat, for that matter) wait so long before requesting review by the USPTO.  Based on what we've learned, from posts by you and Wolfy in particular, the request for review should have been expected.  It is an apparent "no brainer" move by the defendants, et al.  But why wait until so near the "eleventh hour" to initiate action?  It seems this delay to act would be counter to a desire to request a stay by the court (a later initiatation of action by the USPTO reducing the probability of a stay).

My first thought in considering this is perhaps it took the defendants this long to develop a compelling request to the USPTO.  But if this were the case, it seems that if the defendants "had nuttin' " up till that late date (of their request), why the litigation?  Were they just hoping, in the course of the legal process, to come up with "sumpin' "?  I, in my naivete, see their pursuit of the litigation route as either very "ballsy" or an act of desperation.  This assuming they had nuttin'.  But, back to the original question, if they had their justification (compelling evidence for the USPTO)  at an earlier date, is there any reason why they would hold off on the petition to the USPTO?  Advantage?  I just don't see any.  And I find this puzzling....

TIA,

SGE