LocWolf Wednesday, 10/24/12 02:43:46 PM
Re: Boxsterfan post# 10784
Post # of 11274
We hope HD prevails in the end but understand that through the years separately and later in competition HD and Intel were required to address USPTO concerns many times with similar patent-patents rejected in part and in whole. We also know that Intel changed language at least twice to suit USPTO as recently as June 6, 2012. Direct reason may or may not be HD related but we know that the USPTO were coming online in respects to HD request but as I had argued months ago the last go around was a request by Intel to see if modifications were name acceptable to the USPTO. One important statement is that HD’s attorney was not as sharp as some had indicated. She misfiled timing to be accurate. The other area of concern is that the Weston patent has far too many holes in it. Yes maybe Weston was far ahead of his time but if a patent is broken up and spread too thin it may turn and bite the original author. If this becomes a fact, it isn’t because of Intel trying to steal HD patents it is because they have produced a refine proven air tight example. With HD writing this stuff 12 years ago no doubt they were the best but if we don’t continue to make modifications within the correct time frame as this being the case, which the USTPO has sighted, then it is our fault not Intel’s. After all our history what else can go wrong? So with Dr. Barnhill gone we might have a chance but as I stated earlier we must start to condition ourselves for a reverse split. We need a small break to say the least so maybe the USPTO may show favor on our side.
As for the USPTO prosecution resources or daily events involving HD/Intel, I will no longer provide any of those updates. People who wish any of this information will need to read past messages to obtain website access.
