I preface this with the assumption that the examiner does have a reasonable amount of expertise in the subject area. On that basis, I believe the examiner is now looking at this and other prior art, not so much that it provided the technical know how for the 148, but basing obviousness on the design concept. Once the design is figured out, how to make it work is obvious.

And assuming that is what he is trying to do, then trying to equate the timing circuit with a system clock might make some sense. Also trying to use the drawings to show that MARY0-3 (whatever the DRAM nomenclature is) looks to be a majority of the semiconductor active area also might make some sense. But what I can't figure out is what he equates the CPU to. He claims that 4956811 discloses and teaches of a microprocessor integrated circuit. But you need a CPU in order to have a microprocessor. Nowhere in the 4956811 can I find any reference to microprocessor, CPU, MPU or processing unit. So even if trying to use obviousness because the design is not new, how is it obvious if the design is missing the most critical part? Is there anything in 4956811 that could be mistaken for or argued to be a CPU? Obviously a slow day for me.

Happy Fourth everyone. Hope it is a safe one for all. Opty