Here is the direct quote from Jonahlomu:
"The term CPU is not clearly understood by the examiner. In the Kato patent clock 1 is fed only to a volatage detection circuit which does not process data. In the 336 clock 1 is fed to circuitry that processes data. However in the rejection letter the examiner concludes that the entire chip is a CPU and since clock 1 is clearly connected to the chip it feeds the CPU. To resolve this problem the term CPU has to be clearly distinguished in the claim."
One must hope the misunderstanding by the examiner is really this simple and perhaps it is. I find it increasingly hard to believe 2, 3 or 4 technical examiner's spending hundreds of hours and months of work couldn't get this simple concept down. They've either dropped the ball on an epic scale or, they understand it perfectly well and feel their interpretation is correct. Obviously TPL's presentation to the examiner ultimately did not persuade him. We can think whatever we like but the examiner is either going to agree or disagree. In this case they appear to disagree. I appreciate Jonahlomu's perspectives and the old deposition you provided from Despain, it's been awhile since I read it. You appear to be of the opinion that 2 EE's analysis generally represents the opinion of most other EE's. Apparently that is not the case. While the argument could be made that 53 companies and their countless experts agree with TPL, it could also be argued that 350+ companies experts don't agree. That certainly appears to be the position of the USPTO examiner's. I can't imagine the examiner's are in a rush to be put in front of their fellow peers and ripped apart. I'm sure very few of them want to be in front of an appeals board, if possible. They've had almost 2 years to work out the "independent" dispute. Apparently they feel very strongly about their position and are willing to defend it. All IMO.
This reminds me of when fellow employees say, "hey, that stock price can't possibly go any lower, right?" My boss always replies, "why, has it hit zero yet?" That's were we appear to be in this process. We hope like crazy there's a flaw in the USPTO logic, and perhaps there is. But until that is proven, we appear to have lost significant ground with the '336. To say the patent isn't invalidated is just spliting hairs. We both know the value, in all likely hood, would be diminished if the '336 were modified. I shutter to think of the expenses that may occur if we have to fight this battle for another 18-24 months. We must now hope that Crossflo and Avot can gain traction and show some positive results within the next year. I'm not looking for homeruns just enough revenue/profit to avoid dipping into reserves. IMO.
