Replies to post #6372 on Cdex, Inc. (fka CDEX)

[d4diddy]

The first amendment contained all the same claims with the exception that the phrase "actively cooled (sensor)" was added to the base claims. It was rejected. I believe the examiner again cited "anticipated" and gave reference to the claim in another patent.

I believe ontheedge (or his RB alias kidinsight) posted that it is clear to see what is revolutionary about the technology by reading the patent application.

I've asked him several times to please point out to us layman what he seems to think is revolutiuonary in the patent claims, but at this point he has failed to do so.

Can you please point it out to us Onetheedge?

[ontheedge01]

d4diddy:

"How can anything be revolutionary if it's already been anticipated by someone with ordinary skills in the art or is OBVIOUS! There is NOTHING revolutionary in the claims IMO."

Is that what Marc Summerfield of the University of Maryland Medical Center said?

Is that what Jim Jorgenson of Utah Health Sciences said?

Is that what Greg Baldwin of Baxa said.?

Is that what John Tourville of Dallas Medical Center said?

Is that why the above Medical centers signed on with CDEX? Because there was nothing "revolutionary" about the tech? I am sure Baxa sined on so they can sell something that has been around in the market for years.

The severe problem you have with what you think "appears" to be a rejection on patient claims is about as correct as the fact the Tech has been around for a long time, and that Sandia first discovered it. lol

I hope the other medical centers around the country and world don't figure out that this tech is not revolutionary, lol. You sound alot like a person we all know that is smarter than the courts, knows more than Judges, could teach at Harvard Law School, but cannot make it to Austin, Texas.