Agree R2R...Looking back, I always thought our lawyers at the Court of Appeals missed an opportunity to better define our technology. It was when the judge gave the example (and all other examples) of a client calling to a bank to confirm a transaction, so why do you need SFOR technology? Our lawyers should have said yes, you are right judge, that is a way to confirm a transaction. It does work for a single transaction and I guess could be done every time a transaction needs to be confirmed. But how do you do that millions of times a second all around the world? That is what our patent does all day long without a phone call. We got caught in silly arguments that cost us dearly, maybe it would not have changed the decision but it would have been a better defense...