The 419 patent is an interesting contrast with MMP patents. It is an assembly of parts using certain materials. The claims primarily deal with certain parts, location of various parts and what materials are used.

Given the inexperience of the examination staff relative to high tech stuff (and I have checked them out), I suspect this is probably what examiners are told to look for - same parts, locations, materials etc.. - all the physical stuff. They are not asked to try to understand the technology. If there is more to it than just an assembly of parts, let the patent owner provide/explain it. When fully explained it goes to someone with expertise (like Ed Chan) to assesses the explanations. In this way the PTO can use examiners that do not have expertise in these high tech areas. Get the exam down to nuts and bolts explanations which can then be reviewed by a technology expert. If this is the policy (I believe it is), then it makes it easier for the PTO to find examiners on the cheap. Of course, they need more examiners because they prolong the examination process uncessarily. But that is OK as it builds a bigger bureaucracy. May I suggest that OA rejections that sound like examiners do not understand the tech is just that. And that must be awfully frustrating for Chuck Moore. All IMHO

Opty