<Could it be the USPTO allowed this re-ex for procedual reasons, so nobody could appeal it because the USPTO had ignored "new" facts? And is it possible the new examiner has to accelerate the re-ex process and do his job in weeks instead of months (or years)?>

It requires only a little time to repeat what the 3rd party requester said. Too tempting to take the easy way out. And if the new examiner has no clue about microprocessors, he could look bad if he attempts to act like he knows what he's talking about. Better to let the patent owner explain why the prior art does not apply, and then just agree.

We should get a feel for whether the above has any merit, once we see the OA on IFW. I'm hoping this is indeed the case, as that would at least provide me with some comfort as to the expected end result.

One would hope that the USPTO would find other things to do rather than reexamine the same patent for a fourth or fifth time. But who knows. Can't believe they allowed this one.

GTA, Opty