Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[nyt]

Vplm was not required to prove to USPTO the patents actually work as described. The rules do not require it. If they had an appropriate reason, the USPTO could have asked Vplm to prove it, via a working model or whatever means necessary to provide such proof. It is my understanding that normally, such proof is not asked for by the USPTO for software patents such as vplm's. So the question is...did the USPTO ask Vplm for such proof and was it supplied by Vplm. Again, such proof would come to the USPTO by way of some kind of suitable working model and not via source code.

So does anyone out there have any information as to whether or not Vplm was asked for and supplied such proof that the patents do what they profess to do? And since the patents are public info, would the USPTO be required to divulge receipt of such proof?

Since proof of workability is not required by the USPTO, I believe that is proof that while a patent is deemed valid the moment it becomes a patent, and that validity holds throughout the life of the patent unless and until someone challenges that validity and wins, that a patent may not work as claimed or at all. And so that fact validates what I've been saying forever about a patent's validity does in no way ensure it works as claimed or is necessary to voip or has any value.

I would suppose that if the USPTO did indeed ask Vplm to provide the proof, the results of the alleged 3 city nodal testing may have been adequate proof for the USPTO. I imagine that would depend on the entire testing process and the interpretation of the results. It's possible that the USPTO might not have accepted vplm's proprietary testing procedures. Is any of this public knowledge, thus available for inspection? Does anyone know one way of the other?