Further to my prior post, same subject.

OK found what the examiner is equating to the CPU. On page 8 he quotes the 148 'procesing unit operating in accordance with a predefined sequence of program instructions' which he compares to 'DRAMs adapted for the x1 bit pattern or x4 bit pattern, the operating modes are programmed as....'. So indeed, it appears the examiner is saying that all the design concepts of the 148 are disclosed in the 4956811. Well, at least in his eyes anyway. Truely unbelieveable stretch of the imagination.

I'm wondering if the (unofficial) ex parte reexam process is now set up to first challenge based on individual patent claims, and if that passes muster to automatically challenge based on obviousness. I believe that examiner actively sought out something to argue obviousness, and 4956811 is what he came up with.

But, to me, it seems unlikely that a determination of obviousness as a result of 4956811 would stand on appeal. So I see its inclusion in the second OA as perhaps just the process at work and providing the opportunity to clear the obviousness hurdle. All IMHO of course. Opty