Thanks for heading me in that direction. I have read both patents, and indeed, they differ somewhat from the prior art in that no external security gate is used but a co-processor co residing with the main processor handles the secure information separately. There are two potential issues here, there are a number of patents disclosing separating secure from non secure information for the purpose of processing. Examples are #5,896,499, #6,058,258 and 6,005,939. From a "structure point of view" there is a serious question as to "how far" need the two processors be, after all, WAVX itself (in some of the claims) makes the co-processor, or at least some of its functions, to reside in a keypad or a key board and not in close proximity to the main processor. This raises a number of issues of throth "novelty", "obviousness" and of course, "work around". The second issue is more serious. If someone combines a methodology of processing secure and non secure information on a single microprocessor (just as you have a continuously increasing cache memory in modern processors, they could easily, if they do not already, have a sub processor within the main processor, responsible for security functions, authentication encryption etc.), that will no longer be a "security co-processor and an interface (between the co-processor and the main processor)", and that applies as well to the '239 patent where BIOS and external peripheral are invoked for the same function.
Mind you, I am in no way "rendering" a "validity opinion", that is not my business and requires extensive work and search (my first screen brought up 128 relevant patents and only from the titles, I reviewed three, those cited above), I am just pointing to the fact that if this field becomes truly critical to the industry, many other ways to skin a cat exist. The success or failure of an enterprise seeking to dominate that segment of the market will depend not only on the body of IP it has under the belt, but much more on resources (financial, marketing and service support) that can be brought to the task. The body of IP is surely not what I would call an overwhelming barrier to competitive entries, from my experience in these matters.
Last, WAVX cited in their S-3 of their "knowing" of at least four patents not owned by them that could serve as a threat to their IP, and my query was, does anyone knows which specifically are those four patents, they did not cite references to these ("at least four" in SEC legalese does not exclude 400...<vbg>.)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
