Larry....

For the first application filed Sept 9,2004 10/938,060....published March 9, 2006.....e.Digital filed a request for interference between e.Digital and Hanson, where Hanson was used as prior art by the examiner.

prior art used during the prosecution of the first application with current status:

2002/0159592/Matsushima....last action... July 24, 2006 Mail Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action

2002/10085588/Giaccherini (seems to be identified incorrectly 20020085588)..last action...July 11, 2006 Mail Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action

2005/0053237/Hanson....last action...Aug 20, 2007 Mail Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action

=================================

e.Digital re-filed a second application Sept 14, 2006 11/522,000....published Jan 11, 2007....11/522,000 claims the benefit of 10/938,060

prior art used during the prosecution of the second application with current status:

Chu et al. 09/905,608 (US 2002/0016776) last action Jan 14, 2004 Mail Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action....claims the benefit of 09/534,698 not published Expressly Abandoned -- During Examination.

Yoshino et al. 10/168,928 (US 2003/0120611) last action Apr 17, 2008 Mail Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action....This application was National Stage Entry of PCT/JP01/09535

Okamoto et al. (US 2006/0085859) last actions Nov 10, 2009 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326) May 4, 2010, Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination 05-07-2010

e.Digital has recently submitted to examiner explanations that Okamoto cannot be used as prior art ....and they are now waiting for that determination....

doni