lmorovan,

Do you have a link to the the Defense's (Boone and Baker) initial response to the Loch Harris DA. I looked on your site but couldn't find it.

Diddy

Rottenapple,

You've got to be kidding! He's at it AGAIN???

Good thing you investigated it properly.

P.S. Check your lug nuts.

Shouldn't a revolutionary technology be top secret? Then why did the Army, Navy, Air Force, and DOE disagree.

"Secrecy not recommended"

If a patent application contains certain keywords like "nuclear bomb" or "cold fusion" it is sent to a initial (licensing) review board where it is reviewed by interested defense and government agencies.

If it is of interest to our national security and a government agency wants to retain the technolgy through a licensing agreement, then the patent app would have been classified as secret and it would never have been published.

The Army, Navy, Air Force and DOE evidently didn't see anything of national interest contrary to all the hype that caused thousands of honest folks to lose their investment money.

And in fact, if Loch/CDEx actually thought the technology would "sell like hot cakes" (TM- p4316) shouldn't they have been concerned about allowing the application to be published and viewed by their competition?

I'm specifically referring to patent application 10/268678. That is the application for the revolutionary ELF/EM-1 technology based on x-ray fluorescence.

This patent was filed to protect a revolutionary technology which Loch advertised would save countless human lives by ridding the world of land mines.

Don't you remember all the posts by capnmike and others giving links to all the land mine victims and casualty statistics?

Now we have the same theme with Valimed and the same type of posting.

Don't you remember?

Sure you remember, you sold PP shares for Boone and Baker based on all the hype.

You must of laughed all the way to the bank

Ontheedge, WAKE UP!! I'm referring to the Loch/CDEx ELF patent which is based on XRF!!

I'm not talking about the valimed unit.

Apples and oranges.

Stop running at the mouth and read.

Crow, good question, I don't think so.

The examiner stated "at least one meter" was acceptable as the amended claims currently stand.

When you read the actual patent details it states 1-2 meters but with a lot of wiggle room depending on various factors.

I don't think they give any definite correlation between stand-off, integration time, target concentrations... etc. That'd be hard to do without getting specific.

Not 100% sure though, my attention has been on the claims. I haven't read the detailed description very carefully.

Crow, the patent examiner clearly states that if they use the term "at least one meter" instead of "significant distance" that it would be acceptable.

The examiner references paragraphs 22 & 25 of the application where it states the stand-off distance is one to two meters (depending on conditions) with a integration time of 5-45 seconds.

I'm not sure why it's taking so long to make the correction!

Maybe they need another three months to think it over! LOL

"And isn't it true that they can do little else?"

They can pay for a three month extension, submit another claims amendment, then hope that the PTO's response delay will put them beyond the March 26, 2006 SOL expiration date for civil action.

At this point their revolutionary invention rests solely on the base claims of being operable at significant stand-off distances IMO.

Unless they clarify (at the very least) what a "significant distance" is in units of measurement I believe that this patent is on it's way to final rejection. Of course, I'm not a patent attorney and that's just my novice opinion. BUT, I'd be willing to bet on it (sorry Scared).

If the CDEx crew is going to play the DA game I would expect a time extension request to appear in the file wrapper within the next few days.

AIRBORNE!!

The second amendment appears to contain all the same claims as the first amendment with the exception that the phrase "actively cooled sensor" has been replaced with the phrase "wherein the system is operable at large stand-off distances" in the base claims.

It was rejected by the examiner based on U.S.C. 112, Para. 2:

"The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention."


What does this mean? I believe it means that since everything else has been rejected(note 1), the whole invention rests on the insertion of this single phrase (or variation thereof) "operable at large stand-off distances" in the base claims.

The examiner has recognized this as what the applicant now regards as the basis for his invention.

The phrase was rejected for being ambiguous and vague and the examiner asked the applicant to be more specific.

The PTO is currently awaiting a response.

Note 1. I believe that the only claim which has not been rejected is the claim of having the unit mounted on a back pack.

P.S. I'm now getting a suspicious feeling that this application is being dragged along like the DA.

The first amendment contained all the same claims with the exception that the phrase "actively cooled (sensor)" was added to the base claims. It was rejected. I believe the examiner again cited "anticipated" and gave reference to the claim in another patent.

I believe ontheedge (or his RB alias kidinsight) posted that it is clear to see what is revolutionary about the technology by reading the patent application.

I've asked him several times to please point out to us layman what he seems to think is revolutiuonary in the patent claims, but at this point he has failed to do so.

Can you please point it out to us Onetheedge?

After reviewing the complete "X-ray" patent wrapper it appears as if the first rejection was because the patent claims were obvious or anticipated.

That examiner cited previously patented material to draw that conclusion.

How can anything be revolutionary if it's already been anticipated by someone with ordinary skills in the art or is OBVIOUS! There is NOTHING revolutionary in the claims IMO.

When I first read the claims I opined that they would be rejected based solely on what is currently available on the market today. You cannot patent something that's already been reduced to practice and has been in the public domain for over a year.

I agree Crow. Same with the rest that post irrelevant or obscure and trivial links. It isn't going to amount to anything if Loch/CDEx had nothing sigificant in the first place. It's show time.

The next five months will be the acid test IMO.

A large portion of the CDEx staff have registered their shares to trade.

Today is the last day for CDEx to tell the PTO how far is "a great distance" as described in their first patent application which represents the basis for the original ELF/EM-1. The X-RAY/Magic Window stuff!! That is pivotal IMO.

The Boyz (including p4316) touted 2 meters.

I believe March 26, 2006 marks the SOL to sue the sunsabiches (TM- Himanez) in civil court for fraud.

"Searches for Sandia will yield the following."

And only a grain of sand on the proverbial beach.

"POWER LASER BEAMING" (research into beaming power directly to orbital craft from high power lasers)- facinating stuff.

Good one Capn.

LOL!! Well, well, well, the Sandia/Energy connection once again!

A professional arbitrator without any of Edges's inonit lawyers.

Sand and Crow,

Speaking of Capnmike and his MO, does this fit the bill (too funny!):

By: capnmike
27 Jul 2003, 02:39 PM EDT
Msg. 187288 of 239158
(This msg. is a reply to 187286 by Jasmine99.)
Jump to msg. #
Jasmine99
Do you think that, perhaps, I may have sent email messages to multiple executives I worked with when we were all Hyperion clients after our conversation and BEFORE the PR?

Have you ever considered that the wonderful thing about email messages is they are date stamped? I suggest you or Nancy call me.

Speaking of milchip... shouldn't somebody ask milchip WHY the NY lawyer committee did not act on my complaint and closed their file? Did I send a complaint regarding actions of somebody that was NOT ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF A LAWYER IN THE DOCUMENTED LOCH ISSUES? Shouldn't somebody ask what the issues are in that complaint? Shouldn't somebody ask for the entire complaint to be published? Would you like to learn of the reply I received from a three-letter?

Shouldn't somebody ask about the "dumpster diving" posts here on Raging Bull? Would you like to know what one of the three-letters said in a response to the complaint? I suggest you or Nancy or milchip call me.

Oh yes... in addition...those executives that I reported to when we were implementing Hyperion are ready, willing, and very able to testify regarding the Hyperion emails. I suggest you or Nancy call me. Really!!

RE: Dumpster diving. I STRONGLY suggest you call me. Many readers of this board know, FROM MILCHIP's posts, that the FBI and SEC received copies of my complaint. Are your posts included in that complaint? Did milchip fill you in regarding the content of the complaint? Should I publish a transcript of milchip's answering machine message of 12/24?? I suggest you give me a call. I'll send you a copy of the recording if milchip has decided not to share it with you.

Jasmine99 - I am considering having us actually meet on television with a professional morning show facilitator (national). Are you and milchip up for it?

Jasmine99 - Did you happen to catch one of the named plaintiffs (raiderman) posts? What do you think of this?

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1193195
excerpt...
1) while the lawsuit was going on we were advised by counsel to NOT post, as it could negatively impact the case,

How many posts did milchip publish after the class action began? Were the actions of milchip, a lawyer that should be held to the highest standard, a RISK to Loch shareholders? What is your relationship to milchip? Is there a relationship between rio and milchip? I have some interesting email sent to the SEC that addresses that question.

Jasmine99 - give me a call please.

CapnMike


What I find odd about Capnmike's recent posts to Rottenapple is that RA has been publicly announcing that he has potentially damaging evidence against one of the DA/CA attorneys for quite some time. Now with that information being public knowledge, why has Capnmike suddenly become so concerned that the information gets to the proper authorities? LOL!!

Once I was negotiating with a Japanese company and they wanted to visit our facility. I politely said that "that would be extremely difficult" (translation: "NO WAY!"), and instead suggested that we meet at a neutral location. Why? Because they had nothing to lose and everything to gain from a meeting at our facility (we were negoiating the sale of our proprietary process) while we would have had the opposite.

I thought that was the case but maybe I'm wrong.

lmorovan,

Isn't that the former Judge Keel?

By: capnmike $$$$$
15 May 2001, 12:30 PM EDT Msg. 64743 of 157160

WOW !! Loch’s ELF in Taiwan


http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB00024&read=43796

WOW !! Loch’s ELF in Taiwan

I just received this email from another Loch investor that I have learned to trust and respect. I've choosen to edit out the organization name, individual names and titles. I received explicit permission to post and share this !!!!! So....Guess what?!? In my opinion, polite and professional behavior while performing research can PAY OFF !! Come on Loch Harris / Cdex – what gives?!?!?

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

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 12:01 PM
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: LOCH HARRIS OUR REF 8240



Thank you for your email.

The Loch Harris equipment was not used in any aspect of the clearance.
completed the clearance of the area, removing all mines and bombs.
Loch Harris then used their ELF equipment as a QA measure which apparently recorded the presence of some explosive vapour.

Regard
xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx


----- Original Message -----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: LOCH HARRIS OUR REF 8240


< Thank you so much for your email.
< I have a question though. When you say that vapor trace may have been
picked
< up, was it picked up by the Loch Harris team, and was this before or after
and Loch Harris
are
< discussing the way forward, does this mean you will continue working with
< them?. What a great team the two of you would make!!! Lets get this world
< cleared of these deadly monsters!!
<
< Thank you for your time
< xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

Mike here again...
Some initial thoughts - all in my opinion
1) Material/significant news exists IMO!!
2) My guess on a scenario? -- It sounds very much like Loch succeeded in getting some kind of agreement or contract to do quality assurance scanning with a professional demining organization, and those professionals found and removed a bomb and perhaps other explosive ordinance. ELF might have come in afterward for the QA sweep, and JUST AS ADVERTISED -- ELF is able to detect the effluent molecules in the soil where the bomb and/or UXO had been removed.

Certainly, many detailed questions can be asked at this point.
Wow.


By: capnmike $$$$$
16 May 2001, 02:19 PM EDT Msg. 65042 of 157160
(This msg. is a reply to 65005 by ontheedge00.)
ontheedge00, and all....

some misc info

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB00024&read=44044

Many thanks,
CapnMike


By: 240z
17 May 2001, 04:19 PM EDT Msg. 65201 of 157161
(This msg. is a reply to 64743 by capnmike.)
Capn: I not sure why you would put this type of message on the board. It serves no purpose. I reminds me of the same sort of message about a year ago from someone (maybe you) that had a friend in Lucent who said VAMMP was tested on a chip line and it worked. That was not. When LH has something to say they will (hopefully soon). Until then, Let just post facts.

"The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention."

(Claim Rejections based on U.S.C. 112, Para. 2)

"wherein the system is operable at large stand-off distances."

Come on now Boyz, is it really that difficult to clarify the simple statement above?

Specifically, how great is the "large stand-off distance" this X-RAY Fluoresence method of trace chemical detection capable of operating at with a reasonable integration time?

And an even bigger question is WHY DID EVER SINGLE CLAIM IN CDEX'S X-RAY FLUORESCENCE PATENT APPLICATION GET REJECTED???

Edge, you're dancing around the point. You were asked many times whether Mari sold those specific PP shares disclosed in the SEC filing.

Whether Mari has additional shares (such as open market shares) was never part of the question.

Thanks Paige, that answers that question. eom

One of Ontheedge's winning arguments:

Arloco: "Ontheedge, answer yes or no, did Mari sell all her PP shares?"

Ontheedge: "But how many shares have I sold"

Arloco: "Ontheedge, answer yes or no, are you saying that the SEC filing which states that Mari sold all her PP shares is in error?"

Ontheedge: "but how many shares have I sold?"

"Jeff A. registered to sell 56,500 shares and it says that 6,500 of Mr. Ammon's shares are held in the name of Kenneth Ammon."

But how many shares have I sold? (TM- Ontheedge)

Crow,

I'm wondering whether that 40K price tag includes signatures and the cost of a maintenence program. I doubt it. Most quality manangement programs require at least two calibrations per year and that usually requires a certified tech to visit the hospital.

Makes me wonder whether the 40K is a base price. I'm sure that some of the hospitals that helped CDEx develop the signatures of interest were not charged any extras. However, in the future, I would expect there to be additional fees for ready-to-go packages with the application software already installed and the maintenance contract inked.

That's how all the instrumentaion companies I've dealt with do it anyways- marketing 101.

"Well thank you for the compliment about how hard it is to win an argument with me."

LMAO!!! Now that was funnny Edge!

EDGE,

Settle down "Hot Rod".

"As usual, you are clueless as to what really went down. Andy brought every bit of the fire that he deserved on himself and his wife."

Really, and how do you know that? Let me just say that there are three sides to every story, each parties side and the truth. I've heard both sides.

Now, what did Andy's wife do to deserve the wrath of capnmike?

Would you like to go through all the published posts and letters from Capnmike regarding this incident? Including his public justification for his actions and psuedo apology?

I say lets end this topic of conversation.


vengeance
n.
1 the return of an injury for an injury, in punishment or retribution; avenging of an injury or offense

It's not a pretty word but IMO accurately stated.

Sand,

Yes.

lmorovan, give me a call. eom

Welp Sanddollar,

My take on capnmike's sudden eagerness to engage RA was to stop him from posting about the Jasmine incident in which capnmike's letter publishing skills put him into a predicamnet that he just soon forget. After all, it was a terrible thing to do IMO. Jeopardizing Jasmine's wife's career out of vengeance is not something I'd be proud of doing, regardless of whether Jasmine asked for it or not.

Whether he lied to the SEC, told half truths or provided information in error is really not the issue, it's the reckless disregard for an innocent person's career out of vengeance that speaks the loudest to me.

I don't understand how anyone can be comfortable with that.

Isn't this almost exactly what Loch Harris and now CDEx claim are potential applications? (bold at bottom)


Multispectral Ultraviolet Fluorescence Lidar System Identifies
Chemical Mixtures in Field Tests

by P. J. Hargis, Jr., G. C. Tisone, T. D. Raymond, J. G. Taylor, J. S. Wagner, I. S. Shokair,
R. D. Mead, J. D. Daniels, T. J. Sobering, M. S. Johnson, M. W. Trahan,
B. F. Clark, C. Wakefiled-Reyes, and F. R. Franklin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motivation
Highly sensitive ultraviolet (UV) measurements are generally thought to be of limited use in lidar systems designed to detect chemical species in the atmosphere. Recent work at Sandia National Laboratories has changed this perception and led to the development of a new multispectral UV fluorescence lidar system designed for remote chemical analysis. Briefly, a broadly tunable UV laser is used to transmit multiple laser wavelengths, some of which are selectively absorbed and subsequently excite fluorescence in specific chemical species. The resulting fluorescence spectra at each excitation wavelength are compared to a database of fluorescence spectra from individual species to determine species concentrations. The com-parison is carried out using a unique multivariate analysis algorithm developed at Sandia to determine species concentrations from multi-spectral UV fluorescence measurements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accomplishment
Sandia’s multispectral UV fluorescence lidar system was tested in July 1995 at the Nevada Test Site. Measurements were made on vapor plumes consisting of mixtures of benzene, m-xylene, p-xylene, and toluene ranging in concentration from 1 to 500 ppm. All measurements were made at a standoff distance of 0.5 km. Atmospheric attenuation coefficients derived from elastic backscatter measurements were used in the multivariate analysis algorithm to correct measured fluorescence spectra for distortions due to transmission of the fluorescence radiation through the atmosphere. The analysis algorithm was then used to determine species concentrations and time-dependent concentration profiles. Almost 95% accuracy was achieved in identifying species in chemical plumes containing up to four species. Fluorescence detection limits for individual species ranged from about 5 to 10 ppm-m for all measured species. Highlights of the field test results include the first multivariate analysis of multispectral absorption and fluorescence data and the capability of UV fluorescence lidar measurements to map species concentrations in chemical plumes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Significance
Data obtained at the July 1995 field test demonstrates the potential of multispectral UV fluorescence measurements to detect nuclear, chemical, and biological proliferation activities. Other areas of national importance that benefit from the new technology are counterterrorism, drug interdiction, environmental monitoring, and global climate change.
Figures

I believe that the PTO was interested in the "stand-off distance" too, except it didn't have to do with the detection technology based on UVF. They wanted the CDEx to be more specific about the stand-off distance of the X-RAY based technology.

Substantial stand-off distances using UVF have been around a long time. In fact, Sandia National Laboratory had great success with detecting 5-10 ppm concentrations of targeted samples at a stand-off distance of 1/2 kilometer.

And that was back in 1995 around the time Poteet and Blair allegedly worked together at OSEM and were involved in research projects at Sandia.

Advancements in optics has been expotential over the past ten years. It's exciting to think of what the capabilities are today.

Of course when it comes to X-RAYS, ya just can't change the laws of physics. (Sidebar: Artabraham once claimed that Loch Harris had discovered new laws of physics which I pointed out was OK, as long as they don't contradict existing ones)

I often wondered if UVF was being used all along in the ELF and the Boyz claimed it was XRF just to throw people off like they did with the "magic window" and "nitate" explanantions.

Ontheedge,

I assume that each and every one of my posts are forwarded to the SEC and FBI. In fact, I count on it!

Don't let me down.

"d4diddy never included himself in the honest folk side, remember he bailed early, just like a few crooks may have done."

Of course I include myself as an honest folk, just not one that held my position down to 2 cents. You and a few others make it seem like holding puts you into some type of elite group or clique.

That's how scamseters get people to hold long and lose their money.

Sounds like there may be some good news for shareholders in the future if you're right. That'd be good because the honest folks that saw this through deserve it.

The crooks that think they're above the law need to be brought to justice.

That's OK INET, some people can't even say the big words let alone understand what they mean! LOL

Hey, don't ask in anything about tool and die making.

What a strange answer capnmike, so what are you trying to sell. I don't think he wants to do research on the question, he just wanted a simple reply!

That's my take on it anyway! LOL

"d4diddy, you probably missed a bunch of info between that moment and now."

No doubt, but as usual irrelevant. I obviously can't post about what I missed. However, what I remember were your enthusiastic posts about SPIE and how impressed you were with Blair.

Reminds me of your announcement of the TaiPower deal and most recently your report on the Vegas show.

Do you feel that perhaps your enthusiasm has been a little overzealous in the past.

Please correct me if you feel my recollection is not accurate.