If that's true, I most likely got too much of a headache trying to wrap my head around d the legalese. If so, I apologize for thinking such was not the case. You see we're entitled to far more than just our opinions.. We're entitled to have those opinions get the fair, balanced and open minded consideration they all deserve. I'll have to try to find the decoction and give another look. Are you saying (I already asked) the the orig panel decision did not contain said detail. If I get frustrated trying to understand legalese, that's not my fault, and the conclusions I reach I have to mine the information from elsewhere or in an different way. If I said or implied the decision by new ptab panel was lacking detail when it wasnt, my bad. However, even if the decision was well supported, which I hope is absolutely true, the fact remains that the whole process was tainted. Let me qualify that. The orig panel was unquestionably tainted. All sorts of evidence was shown for that. The 2nd panel decision is tainted possibly by virtue of the fact that everything I see tells me the threatening letters had plenty to do with it and the fact that the panel replacement occurred w/o any given reason. Those points are worthy of consideration as well.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
