It's a logical claim, rather than one based on a smoking gun.That’s correct. Full descriptions of the two patents in question can be found at: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,790,466.PN.&OS=PN/7,790,466&RS=PN/7,790,466 (‘466 patent) http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,575,886.PN.&OS=PN/7,575,886&RS=PN/7,575,886 (‘866 patent) Note that these are recent patents that have a long time to run until expiration. Regards, Dew