not correct.

IMO Roger Cook/TPL would not take a "partial" payment in 2008 and agree to the "balance" when/if we prevail with the PTO.

We are involved in an ex parte re exam and I feel confident that Charles Moore and our attorney's "know" what is being claimed as prior art does not hold water.

The EE's that have weighed in here agree that there is Nothing Obvious about our patents and they have in fact clearly shown that the prior art that Pubpat cites has the ring oscillator clock receiving a signal from an "external clocking mechanism". 

What makes the 336 so unique is that it does NOT rely on an external clock.

"Over" 30 world class companies to date have also agreed.

In light of KSR:

Does the KSR decision really work a change in the law?

In decisions issued since certiorari was granted in KSR, the Federal Circuit has taken great pains to make clear that its TSM test is not applied in a rigid, mechanical fashion, but rather is expansive, taking into account the skill of ordinary artisans in the field.

The Supreme Court appeared to approve of these more recent decisions and apparently will allow the Federal Circuit to continue applying the TSM test, albeit in a less formalistic manner.   VERY IMPORTANT!

Nevertheless, the Court’s decision in KSR is likely to embolden the PTO and courts around the country to invalidate patents that provide little, if any, contribution over the prior art. 

I ask you, did Judge Ward "invalidate" our patents in his interpretation of what our patents claim?

I also ask you, in light of all the DD we have all done for years, do you really think the PTO will say the 336 provides little if any, contribution over the prior art Pubpat is citing in the ex parte?

Remember that OVER 95% of ALL requests for a re exam are granted.  But less than 28% of these (pls. correct on this %) actually result in a patent being rejected.

And, since Townsend, Townsend and Crew, TPL and the rest of the world class companies that have licensed have been privy to these claims, do you honestly still believe that Roger Cook said, OK we'll take a down payment now and we'll wait until the PTO rules to collect the rest?

IMHO and after exhaustive research I say no way! 

I agree that the numbers will be buried with all the other licenses and I also agree with those that have postulated on Royalties but I do no agree with your opinion.

Of course this is my opinion based on DD and the fact that I can't seem to find one IP case that has settled in the manner you hypothesize.

Please point one out so that I can read through the settlement agreement for myself and then I'll re-evaluate my current opinion based on your find.

I hope that the newbies reading what you hypothesize is happening are not thinking that this is a wait and see for another year while the PTO completes the re exam.

Is that what you want??  I don't think so. 

GLTA

Deb