IMO, a cut and paste error qualifies as a typo. I'm glad this got squared away. I hope Agora does recognize the impact of their mistake. Though there is no way to prove it (or disprove it), I suspect this one thing is at least partly responsible for the PPS dip the last couple of days.

I should say "this plus the misinformation promulgated here re: the VNS patents". On the VNS "issue", the ignorant IMO were forcing a conclusion that these patents and associated technology would undercut the MMP. Really? Even if that remote possibility held any water, the reality is as described by Ease - even if the tech were adopted by industry, it would likely take years to implement. The threat is minimal at best.

What else could cause the PPS slip? Possible year end tax loss selling.

In any case, this is very interesting timing for a dip. IMO, we are pretty confident that the '336 recert will be published tomorrow in the Gazette. While this event may not seem that exciting on the surface in light of the new re-exam, it does enable the PTO examiner to publicly act on that re-exam in recognition of the amended '336 and all the file history resulting from the last re-exam. I say publicly because I'm fairly certain that the examiner, if interested, has had access to all the prior re-exam history for weeks.

While the re-exam (flowchart) process does suggest certain actions/timelines for this latest re-exam, it IMO fails to address our specific circumstance. IMO, the process could and should be capable of modification as circumstances dictate. As with any Gov't regulation, it is possible to obtain deviations and waivers within the Gov't merely by gaining agreement/approval by the proper (possibly delegated) authority. There is no way of knowing whether the examiner is adequately compelled to pursue such action, or of how complex such action may in reality be, but it is possible.

Per my recollection of the flowchart, the "action in process" currently is waiting for an optional statement by the inventor (us). If we do submit such a statement within the prescribed 60 days, then the entity that filed the re-exam request is granted time to rebut. As I have suggested before, our team should immediately opt out of providing a statement, thereby ending the filer's participation in the process AND enabling immediate PTO action. Though it would seem that the "opt out" notice should be provided in written form and posted in PAIR, it could perhaps be done by more informal means (i.e., simple contact with the examiner). For all we KNOW, this may already have happened. Or it could be that a formal opt out awaits the publication expected tomorrow. In any case, if our team acts as I would logically expect (i.e., as above), things could happen real fast.

IMO, the PPS does not refect any of this (though I do recognize it is just my conjecture - though IMO the logic is not arguable). The PPS reflects the things mentioned in the first three paras above. The only other things hanging out there are the Baroni plan (with no impact on our real bread and butter - the MMP) and the Moore/TPL debackle which in the opinion of most should have no impact on PTSC.

Now that I've hit that gorey subject, remember what Moore harps about - the money owed him. Some suggest he wants ownership of his full half of the MMP. Why? If he gets the money, what difference does it make to him? Pride? He is already recognized as being (rightfully or not) half inventor of the MMP. And it's called the MMP portfolio - the Moore Microprocessor Patent portfolio. How much moore (!) recognition does he needed? Get serious!

All JMHOs.

SGE