moderator, please delete this extra post (mine, not Steve's)

I find it terribly discouraging...

I disagree that there has been "virtually no impact on the pps" with this recent decline. I think that going from .065 on the bid down to .052 on the bid is a rather large impact - 20% impact. That hardly constitutes "virtually no impact."

Under .006 now. We really need something to happen soon!!!

Set for life at a dime, ehhhh??? That would make your cost average incredibly low, likely under .01, and with somewhere around 10 million shares, at that! Really????

Better to e-mail him the sayittoplayit site

RMCI blocked the path a short while back, too; RMCI appears to have taken the role that DOMS had for so long of blocking any upward movement. RMCI came around on the ask about the time that the new investors were purportedly on the scene, which makes me wonder what they might be doing to push the price down for purposes of maximizing that prospects on their money-for-stock exchange.

Coolio...wasn't sure if you had misread what I posted.

I didn't say it was written anywhere; I stated it is MY opinion that such is the case. From a logical point of view, it seems hard to believe that Telmex would split 50/50 the monies received when the eventual expectation is a license agreement; far more likely, from both a business and a logical standpoint, is that any "arrearages" in license payments will be added into the mix once an agreement is reached between ONEV and Telmex.

He NEVER EVER said anything about a 50/50 split with Telnor.

The last CC before the November, 2007 CC occurred in something like April of 2005, when Johnson prognosticated signing "at least" 15 carriers, or something to that effect.

No, you did not say, "Dean made it appear." But, then I am not surprised that you expect people to overlook what you actually say (while at the same time excoriating Dean for not being held accountable for what he has said). Nice try with the RCC and Telnor comparison as a face-saving effort by you to shoehorn Dean into something he didn't say. The fact is that Dean never made a public statement about Telnor bringing ONEV to breakever, and he never made a public statement about a 50/50 split. Veno claimed that he was told that by Dean.

Dean did NOT mention a 50/50 split on the CC, plain and simple.

No, that was with RCC. Neither Telnor nor Telmex was the cause of stating breakeven for Q1 2006, RCC was the basis for that statement.

I know that; I am sure that you simply overlooked this portion of my post:

"And Dean never said breakeven based on Telnor - veno and others suggested it. "

There was one, and only one, conference call, not calls. And Dean never said breakeven based on Telnor - veno and others suggested it. Neither Dean nor ONEV is on record as having said anything about Telnor bringing breakeven, as far as I recall. If you know differently, please enlighten as to when such was indicated BY ONEV OR DEAN.

Because ONEV was bragging about those things before the license agreement became the word du jour. Once the L word entered the discussion, the other payment options were sidelines, IMO.

There is no way that ONEV is getting paid for Iris users absent the license agreement; to the extent that any payment is due, those amounts will be encompassed within the license agreement, IMHO.

I did answer your question, but you apparently ignored my reply. The application you posted is NOT the unviewable one. The one you posted was filed in 2007; the one I referenced was filed 3/12/2008.

what suit???

that, however is not what you said. Adding contacts is not the same as accessing e-mail. It's more akin to ONEV's MV, especially where it idscusses accessing that information from a server.

I don't see the portion of the application that would cover e-mail. The way that the application is written does not seem to address acquisition and conversion of e-mail to be read back or sent as text to the user.

Oh, and no, that is not the second continuation application I previously noted that is pending from the allowed 2006 Google patent. This application, however, does seem to affect ONEV's current products, though, if allowed. The application you provided was filed in September of 2007. The one that I cited, was filed on March 12, 2008.

I do note, though, that Google switched patent firms on this one to one of the foremost patent firms in the country, Fish & Richardson.

To say that Weber discloses a weighted Boolean query is not to say that he owns that as a patented invention. Rather, a weighted Boolean query, which he does NOT own as an invention, is a part of the claims that he made that DID get patented. It's okay if you don't understand patent law, but don't be so strident when someone is trying to help you understand. The fact is that the 2008 Google patent is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a reissue patent. It is a NEW patent, and the prior patent continues to exist, because each patent covers different claims.

See here for help on understanding a continuation application, which is what the newly-issued patent was relative to the earlier patent:

http://www.clemson.edu/research/ottSite/ottStart_IntelectDefs.htm

The second patent was a continuation of the first. It's how things work. An inventor seeking a patent can submit an application, then later submit a DIFFERENT application with new or the same claims directed to the same invention as claimed in the earlier application/patent.

You said that you wanted help to understand the process, then you respond to me as though you don't.

Also, go to the PAIR system for the USPTO site for the newly-issued patent, then click on the "continuity data" tab for the 2008 patent, and you will see, in clear language, that the USPTO states, in no unequivocal terms, that the 2008 patent's application was a continuation from the 2006 patent's application, and that the 2006 application is PATENTED.

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4gPMATJgFieAfqRqCLGpugijnABX4_83FT9IKBEpDlQxNDCRz8qJzU9MblSP1jfWz9AvyA3NDSi3NsRAHxEBJg!/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWlDU1lKSi9vQXd3QUFNWWdBQ0VJUWhDRUVJaEZLQSEvNEZHZ2RZbktKMEZSb1hmckNIZGgvN18wXzE4TC8xOS9zYS5nZXRCaWI!#7_0_18L

No, it's not. You need to read the notice of allowance from the USPTO regarding the 2008 Google patent.

The USPTO didn't say that ONEV patented the weighted boolean query.

It was not a reissuance; it is a separate patent. The two patents, however, have a parent-child relationship, and the child patent is a continuation patent of the parent. Each patent is evaluated separately, as each contains different claims. Each patent initially was rejected in light of Weber and Weber combined with others. In each case, however, Google came up with new features that were not anticipated by Weber/Weber with others. Now, they have a third application pending, as of March of this year.

See below for discussion of reissuance:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9107.html

and

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/reissue-patent.html

That is the original voice search patent granted to Google, but not the one that we have been discussing. The one that we have been discussing is the child of the '987 patent to which you have linked. Like the child, the parent initially was rejected due to the teachings of Weber, but as with the child, the parent overcame those objections and rejections by modifying the claims, in the parent's case by modifying the manner in which the weighted boolean search is constructed.

Additionally, it is worth noting that Google recently applied for yet another patent, which also is a child of the original patent, and the application number for that new one is 12/047,108 (that application, however, is not available for public viewing at this time.

Yes, that is the issuance of the patent, following the payment of all fees required from Google.

Just to be clear, the USPTO initially rejected Google's application over Weber and over Weber and others. By the end of the process, however, Google successfully managed to convince the USPTO examiner that its patent application offered something "novel" over Weber and Weber and others. At the end of the day, the examiner determined that the key to Google's patent application was that the claims were focused on "how to construe 'a plurality of recognition hypotheses', where the recognition hypotheses having no search results are discarded." It was the addition by Google to their originally-rejected application of the portion of the eventually-allowed claims of "a plurality of recognition hypotheses" and the "discarding of those plurality of recognition hypotheses having no results" that made the Google application patentable over Weber and Weber and others. AS the exmainer commented in his allowance of Google's amended application, Google's "invention is distinguished by producing a plurality of alternative search hypotheses when it is not certain what words were spoken. Thus, compound search term alternatives are 'white house', 'light house', and 'white mouse'. ...Weber and Kupiec do not disclose search term alternatives as 'recognition hypotheses', and so cannot discard, or drop, search term alternatives that have no search results." Moreover, although one skilled in the art would understand to search all alternatives a user might have said, Google's invention "better takes into account uncertainties in speech recognition to refine a search query without requiring a user to take steps to disambiguate what was said." Thus, the examiner found the final claims to be both novel and not anticipated by the prior art of Weber and Weber and others.

From reading the examiner's allowance, however, together with the Google application, I do not see how the examiner could conclude, as he did, that the Google invention better takes into account uncertainties in speech recognition to disambiguate what was said without requiring the user to take steps to do so.

Even so, it is true that because of the Weber patent, as well as Weber in light of others, Google's original application containing 30 claims was whittled and amended down to 14.

Perhaps it's because they know that can't get a timeline right, so it's better not to overpromise and underdeliver on yet another timeline. Or, maybe they didn't think of it in the way I suggested. Or, maybe they didn't ask the MTNL how long it would take. Or, maybe MTNL said they didn't know how long it would take when the were asked.

That, he did, but no PR today can compensate for that errant call. Today's PR cannot be assailed because of that errant call.

If a deal is only a month away, you put out this PR because you need to reassure the markets, which currently have tanked your stock to .006; a month, in market terms, is a long time, and it becomes an even longer time when concern about whether things still are on track are thrown into the mix. This PR, although short on some further timelines that could have been nice to have, still is useful as a tool to assuage concerns and to make public some things that have been told to particular investors.

I disagree that it was a "bad bad" move; it didn't add much new, other than S2P and Street Deck betas, BUT it wasn't "bad bad." I think that it is reasonable for Dean to update what the status is with MTNL. What the PR did with MTNL is confirm exactly what the delay is. It's amazing to me that some here clamor for communication to apprise shareholders of the delays, and now, when the Company did EXACTLY that, people insist that such an update is a bad move. Honestly, you can't have it both ways on that score. As someone who DOES clamor for more open and effective communication regarding the REASON for delays, I am glad that he confirmed what some have been told, that MTNL is waiting for lines to be installed by the phone company. That was EXACTLY the type of communication that needs to be more commonplace, IMHO.

AS for the timelines, that is a catch-22; we excoriate them for missing timelines, then do the same when they give no timelines. I do think there is some middle ground that could be struck. I do think that ONEV, for instance, could have said, regarding MTNL, we inquired of MTNL and they indicated they expected the lines to be installed within a month. That way, it's clear that it was MTNL that set the timeline, and not ONEV.

"That or Dean is totally incompetent being a CEO as far as share price is concerened"

DING DING DING...WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Showing someone else's patent as prior art does NOT mean that you need that other invention in the execution of your own invention.

It does show strength in the patents, but in the end, the examiner backed off on his conclusion that Weber, in combination with other specified patents, taught the claims sought by Google.

Additionally, it is noteworthy that the Google patent that eventually DID issue, initially was rejected in significant part based on Weber's patent, too.

Go to www.uspto.gov and search in the pair listings for application 11/346,182

Then, check the file wrapper history, and check the non-final rejection letter from 12/06, as well as the "final rejection" on 4/12/07, also rejecting several claims based on Weber's '524 patent. Then, after further amendments and a request for continued examination, another non-final rejection in 7/07. That non-final rejection on amended claims eventually led to yet another amendment, which then led to issuance of a patent in 12/07.

That part, although certainly an issue, is rendered immaterial by leaving the matter in the hands of the funders, and not ONEV. The choice is not ONEV's to make, regardless of whether they have the funds in the first place.

The filing now confirms that the Credit Line now is a convertible instrument, AT THE OPTION OF THE FUNDERS!!!


Do you really think that they will choose to accept repayment instead of stock conversion???? THAT is the $64 question in this scenario, as it pertains to the insufficiency of the current A/S.