Again, I guess refusing to respond to such disrespectful shareholders is understandable. I wonder why they become disrespectful. Perhaps, like respect, DISrespect is often EARNED!

Mr. Flowers and Members of the Board of Directors:

With the ITC decision still not out, can you please clarify for me and other interested shareholders, what is the correct information regarding the timing of the ITC's decision on the Petition for Review? This is my third attempt to get a response to this e-mail, and it's very disappointing to see the lack of concern that PTSC continues to show for the interests of shareholders.

This unprofessional behavior on the part of PTSC's management and Board of Directors, to refuse to even acknowledge, much less respond to legitimate shareholder questions and concerns is indefensible. It's truly shameful that you choose to behave this way, and considering your unsuccessful history, it's not a far stretch to conclude that this lack of attention and irresponsible and unaccountable behavior is pervasive in PTSC Management's and BOD's activities, and the main reason PTSC finds itself in the difficulties it does. You should do better, and if you're not interested in doing better, should collectively show yourselves the door.

Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 9:45 AM
To: 'ir@ptsc.com'
Subject: RE: ITC Review Decision error in 10q?

I'm sure the company has been inundated with e-mails of late, so mine below must have slipped through the cracks. I wanted to take the opportunity to resend it to give you an opportunity to respond promptly. Thanks

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:39 PM
To: 'ir@ptsc.com'
Subject: ITC Review Decision error in 10q?

Dear Mr. Flowers & BOD Members,

I am a PTSC shareholder and have a question that I would like clarified. In the most recent 10q, PTSC stated that:

"We filed a petition for review of the Initial Determination with the full ITC on September 23, 2013.We expect to learn within 45 days of the date of the Initial Determination if the petition for review will be granted."

Can you please clarify why this is the understanding of the company and that it is correct? It seems that the ITC Initial Determination was issued with a date of service of September 6, 2013 in accordance with ITC rule 210.42(a)(1)(i). According to the information found in the link listed below, specifically 210.43 (d) and Appendix A to part 210, the decision on whether to grant or deny the petition for review for Initial Determination on issues concerning violation of section 337 (ie. per 210.41 (a)(1)(i)) is due 60 days after the service of the Initial Determination, rather than 45.

Additionally, just to be clear I understand correctly, the petition must be submitted no more than 12 days for issues of violation and no more than 10 days on summary initial determinations according to the link below. Since we filed our petition on September 23, I'm assuming those periods that the ITC references are in "business days" rather than "calendar days". Can you please confirm that this is the case as the referenced rules seem to specifically include "business" when referring to business days, and seem to omit the use of the "business" qualifier in other references. This implies that unless "business" is specifically included, the days would be in calendar days. However, this is unclear. Obviously, if it's calendar days, it would suggest that our petition was actually untimely, and I just want to confirm that's not the case.

http://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/documents/section337_rules.pdf

Thanks for your anticipated prompt and inclusive response.