The current re-examination of patent '148 has found problems with claims 4,7,8 and 10, citing prior art which would make them obvious.

However, I looked through the cited prior art and found it interesting that the same examiner who granted the '148 was fully aware, at the time of grant, of the claimed prior art, as he was the primary examiner for patent  4783734, which was to improve on European patent specification No. 0113516.   

Here I would defer to an experienced EE, but my reading of both applications would indicate dissimilarity rather than teaching and obviousness.

Now, going back to David Y. Eng, from the links, he was at least aware of the European patent 0113516, which in turn relates to the material currently being used by the USPTO to claim obviousness. This predates the '148 application by several years. So, why was the '148 granted? Draw your own conclusions, but going through the claims and TPL/Moore's responses on the '336(INMOS), they don't appear to be comparing like with like, they are incommensurable, in my very humble opinion. 

Corrections more than welcome.

A very happy new year to all.

Be well