Actually, you demonstrate either a comprehension problem, or simply a desire to be argumentative for argument's sake.
My post responds to milestone's post citing language in the M.A. to justify why PTSC CAN'T issue a PR regarding this issue. I was simply pointing out the error of that conclusion.
As for the PR being fluff, that argument can be made I suppose, but when the company has only one viable source of income, and the aorta of that source (the '336) is under attack, one can consider the disposition of that attack an important piece of information. In fact, PTSC considered it such back in February, when they issued a PR that communicated that the very same requester's re-exam had been denied. Considering that precedent, and that the requester subsequently filed a petition, and that the USPTO considered the petition for approx 9 months, before denying it, I think it would be arguably appropriate, AND beneficial, for PTSC to highlight the extent of combativeness that infringers are battling, and the extent of SUCCESS PTSC is having in withstanding those battles.
Obviously, you feel differently...or perhaps you don't but feel the need to be combative yourself.
