My apologies to the board, if my reading of the tea leaves was incorrect.

Further looking at the information leads me to believe that the May 9th appellate court decision on the 584 may have been requested to be reheard enbanc. Not sure why the search printed out that information under the 336 and 148 patents as well as 584. And I honestly didn't think we could appeal the decision and get a reply that fast. But upon further looking, I think I was wrong on both counts.

In all liklihood that is what the rehearing denial was. A request to rehear enbanc. Not positive, but strong liklihood.

If anyone wants to remove the entire thread except for this corrective post, I think they should.

Opty