That is exactly what the examiner wants. He wants Moore to argue his case in a way that accepts the examiners faulty premise.

IMHO Moore should be arguing that the patent was written for use in a microprocessor and the prior art being referenced is not microprocessor prior art.

In the end Moore can win that argument, even if it has to go to appeal. I don't know if he can win arguing that the method in his patent is different from the method in some cited art. Then he runs the same risk as the '584 patent, where examiner saw no difference between a microprocessor and a mainframe. Opty