A patent application submitted by TiVo in 2003, which was recently rejected by the PTO on 6/9/2009, and the reasons behind the rejection appear to have some interesting relevance to the current "ring of buffer" argument. The rejected TiVo patent application is titled "Digital Video Recorder System". Below is an excerpt of the PTO rejection: The prior art used to defeat the TiVo's patent application, which was very similar to the "Time Warp" patent, clearly discussed the need for the use of the "ring buffers" to store digital video streams before recording to the HDD. Every DVR has it. Without such buffering the HDD simply cannot record the programming, the HDD heads do not have sufficient bandwidth to do a direct storage. TiVo knew E* removed the "automatic flow control" between the "transform object" and the "source object". But TiVo is also very familiar with the concept of the "ring buffers". After all they had been arguing with the PTO on this issue for all these years in a separate patent application. TiVo knew there had to be such "ring buffers" still used in the DVRs to allow the storage of programming onto the HDD, so they easily found them in the E* modified DVRs, then insisted that the operation of such "ring buffers" met their so called "automatic flow control" art, without telling the court that such "ring buffer art" had already been rejected by the PTO in TiVo's another patent application, because it was made obvious by prior art. The TiVo's "Time Warp" patent has nothing to do with such HDD "ring buffers" art, TiVo knew it because they tried to claim such art in a later application and was rejected by the PTO, yet in an attempt to nail E* for contempt, they withheld such patent procecution history information. TiVo knew they could probably get away with it because it was a different patent application. In the latest PTO filing, in response to the PTO's rejection of its software claims in this "Time Warp" patent, TiVo stated that they needed more time to respond to the PTO rejection, mainingly to use the "flow control art" and the "secondary considerations" to overcome the rejection. TiVo also knew that the "flow control art" in its "Time Warp" software claims could not be the "ring buffers art" they claimed in the contempt proceeding, I think that is the real reason TiVo wanted to extend their response time to be one day after the 11/2/09 appeals court oral arguement, so that E* cannot use TiVo's 11/03/09 response to the PTO as evidence. If E* were smart enough, they should have gone through those TiVo patent applications, and use the arguments by TiVo and the PTO to demonstrate how TiVo had managed to, knowingly I might add, manipulate all those different art in order to win Judge Folsom over.