I'm reposting part of my post from yesterday in a quest to confirm what I think are facts re: the '148 and '749. I KNOW some 12 people read that post and a few replied, but I didn't get any corrections if there were any to be had. Just want a reality check...

"My understanding is that the ‘148 and ‘749 are being handled by the same examiner and/or are being worked in concert.It is my further understanding that NIRCs on these two patents are imminent.While I had previously poo-poo’d the thought that NIRCs on these patents will “take us to .70”, after full consideration I suspect this is possible on their announcement.Why?Because these two patents, while not cited by the company as being as significant as the ‘336, IMO are equally significant (particularly the ‘148, IM ignorant O).And there is one thing very different in the re-cert of these patents than when we had the NIRC on the ‘336 from its prior re-exam, that being that we (and presumably those watching PTSC closely) knew that there was another re-exam request “in the wings” on the ‘336 when the NIRC was announced (not accepted, and perhaps not even reworked and re-submitted, but we knew it was out there, pending, leaving continued doubt/concern).That, to my knowledge, is not the case with either the ‘148 or ‘749.There is nothing known to be waiting in the wings on these. Thus, the ‘148 and ‘749 are not “encumbered” as was the ‘336 when its NIRC was announced.

Significance of the’148 and ‘749?Well, the’148 was included in the J2.5 litigation/settlement (and whatever delusional things could come of that), but my understanding is that the ‘148 is not included in the case with the T3.Conversely, my understanding is that the ‘749, while not directly part of the J2.5 litigation, is part of the T3 case.NIRCs on these two patents could make things happen (as I continue to contend that it only takes one – though in the case of the J2.5, I suspect that it would preferable to have both the ‘148 and ‘336 re-certed to cause action, if there is any action to be had by Judge Ward).Here I’m only talking on the past/instant litigation activities."

Is the "factual" (not specified delusional) info above correct?

TIA,

SGE