But what you said is this:

"Everytime the USPTO see's a new license agreement signed, it just confirms to them how badly technology needs the MMP and hopefully impress on them how badly the infringers want to get off "Scott Used Free" LOL"

Their job is not to determine how integral a technology is or whether users or the technology want to get out of paying for it. Their job is to determine the validity the patents.

"No kidding sherlock, but they do take the licenses as proof of product is in need and marketable."

So what? Proof that products are in need and marketable have nothing to do with proving validity of patents or their claims.

Quantity of licenses is good for PTSC's bottom line, presumably. Quantity of licenses does nothing to accelerate or influence the USPTO's decision and it is irresponsible to promote the idea that each license (which, again in this case, is just an add-on from an existing licensee) means the scales tip more in PTSC's favor at the USPTO.

Also, Sherlock is capitalized.