Agree. I don't see the amendments as doing anything but making it easier to determine/prove infringement. Same number of teeth, but a bit sharper.

I was expecting a response similar to the 584, where examiner had given the OK to the entire response. Apparently they feel their case for cpu operating asynchronously to the I/O interface is strong enough that it was not necessary to get the the examiners OK before responding. I think the request for elaboration of the grounds for the assertion that Kato may not preclude asynchronous operations is saying that we are comfortable that the basis for adding the amendment exists, but we do not see how the examiner can back up the assertion. I doubt you will find anyone here disagreeing.

More importantly, I do believe that these amendments also address the prior art in the new request for reexam. Perhaps in better shape than we thought a few days ago.

GLTA Opty