<but you know I was stunned at the wording from this examiner from the patent office.  especially the pages where he agrees with the pubat claims about Mostek, Hitachi, and Boney and how they should have been included as prior art.>

Could someone with legal experience expand on this point please.  When we first learned of the Pubat application there was significant technical discussions re the prior art mentioned.  From what I read and heard here, I came away with the feeling that even if these prior art references were made in the patent application, the patent would still have passed muster and been granted.  Also, can't we assume that the examiner would have looked beyond what was referenced in the application? Is it possible that even though PTO granted the review, that some or all of the Putbat references were considered during the patent application?  I would assume that the decision to review is made based only on the patent application and the Pubat request doc. and digging into detail of what transpired many years ago comes during the review. Yes?? TIA Opty