< Continued use of terms that state, or even imply, criminal conduct on the part of PTO examiners or other PTO personnel may well begin to alienate the "higher ups" that SGE has mentioned>

Smells like skunk oil, but let's call it perfume? I know what you are trying to convey, but we accurately described to the USPTO what it looked like to us. To indicate something less would be trivializing the situation. Extended litigation. Multiple reexams of the 336 . A significant amount of prior art thrown at the 336. Infringers have much to lose. Don't know how often influence peddling comes into play, but unless the USPTO is made aware of the potential problem, they aren't likely to look.

Much will depend on what the USPTO decides to do with the information placed in their hands. Continued USPTO inaction on the 336 is not going to help the situation. At some point, I suspect, there will be additional shareholder action of some sort.

Since you indicated that you applaud the effort, perhaps you might be willing to provide your thoughts on what you think might be the next step, should current efforts fail to light a fire under the USPTO.

Opty