NeoMedia Technologies (Bears Board) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : NeoMedia Technologies (Bears Board)

NEOM 0.0001000

+100.0%

Oct 28 12:54 PM EDT

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: brewskih	7/10/2008 12:48:18 PM
	of 194

A few myths need to be set aside about Neomedias patent reexam. It is now being stated that the process has just begun. FALSE. The process is nearing conclusion. The process works as follows. 1. The USPTO receives a request for re-exam. 2. The USPTO examines the evidence provided and determines whether a re-exam is in order based on those new facts presented 3. Then the patent holder has a chance to respond if such a re-exam is determined to be necessary. 4. After such response or lack there of, the USPTO does a thorough exam of the newly claimed prior art and makes a non final decision to reject any or all claims, or to reject no claims. 5. This is their decision based on the extensive review they have conducted, and now the company owning the patent gets a chance to convince them their non final decision is wrong. 6. If the company does not convince them they are wrong, a final action is entered. 7. Then the company appeals. So the process is far from in its initial stage, of the USPTO just now evaluating the claims in the patent. They have completed that process and in their opinion rejected all 95 claims as being unpatentable based on all the facts they have reviewed over the past several months. They even footnote definitions from Wickipedia as a part of their assessment. They have determined that all of this art was covered in the Wellner patent presented to them and thats the facts. Then there is the myth that the USPTO is responsible and should be sued. Neomedia and their attorneys are responsible for providing the USPTO with all known prior art. They did not include this patent in their references for this particular patent, even though some have claimed they did in earlier patent applications. I wonder why they excluded it in this application. So Neomedia and their attorneys who knew of this patent since they cited it earlier are the ones at fault. Then there is the myth that Neomedias business was built on these patents. That is so bogus its not funny. When the first of these patents was issued Neomedia was reselling computer equipment and buying oil fields. Then they decided to be the super company buying anyone at the bottom of the barrel in the mobile business. Those acquisitions had nothing to do with the patents. Neomedia didn't even have a viable product to use with those patents until Gavitec developed the NEOREADER for them. The paperclic and Qode was so archaic they never would of survived the competition. I will work on clearing up some more of the myths now being propagated in the morning.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next