Can't be any infringers until the patent is approved, so not sure what you meant?
Here are the "inventors, of which only Kevin is still there as our Cheif Engr.
Inventor Information
NameAddress
| Atul M. Anandpura |
San Diego, CA (US) |
| David S. Baggest |
Murrieta, CA (US) |
| Kevin A. Bostenero |
Poway, CA (US) |
To my memory, Atul was the lead.
If the prosecution history is reviewed carefully, there was LOTS of activity in 2010, to achieve the RCE. Bostenaro and Nunally did this work.
When the non-final rejection hit 10-18-13, I looked almost weekly for a response, and when I saw nothing, it appeared to me the requirements to overcome the rejection, vs the return if approved, especially with microSignet sailing thru the process without many challenges, was felt to be a waste of resources/money to continue the fight.
Creating the many claims of a patent app is grueling in itself, stating prior art etc, and overcoming USPTO red tape. To quote Nunally 8-29-13, "the PTO does not rubber stamp anything. They prepare a host of questions to the inventor vs finding the answers themselves. It is a very difficult and time consuming process to obtain approval."
Whether or not transmitting data securely via encryption, vs using microSignet tech in chips is now the answer, I'll leave that to others, but this app was no longer worth going forward or they would have responded.
As to "our patent law firm called regularly" I believe how often is an assumption on our part and it's been exagerated. I did not get the feeling over the years when this came up at the 08, 09, 11 & 13 SHM's there was nothing but declining interest on EDIG's part to keep messing with this.
The non-final rejection 10-18-13 took the wind out of EDIG's sails IMO.
Inventor Information
NameAddress
| Atul M. Anandpura |
San Diego, CA (US) |
| David S. Baggest |
Murrieta, CA (US) |
| Kevin A. Bostenero |
Poway, CA (US)
|
