Sorry Guys,

I messed up and didn't give you the data I referenced in my first posting I was referencing a posting from Mark4321 and the data did not travel from my letter to PTSC. I am not a strong computer user. I'll try to do better.

Below is the referenced paragraphs I sent to IR. I agree that Mr. Moore can use some help. Perhaps we can move IR to make it happen.

IMO, Charles Moore needs an assistant with a legal background to help handle the KSR obviousness problems. I've read his answers to USPTO disputed claims and IMO they were not good.

His answer were like the following hypothetical example: "the clocking device in that PTO designated patent did not involve a microprocessor therefore it is not relevant to our microprocessor patent and therefore that patent is not obvious to our patent. Instead he should have stated how their clocking device was used as an alarm and our clocking device was a variable speed system timing device with different functions and that their device would not have been predictive of the results we were able to obtain with our clocking device