Most interesting. The examiner is asking for Kajiaya, Tanimura and Bugala to be argued again, even though they were argued in a 3/27/09 response. Odd indeed. Does this mean that the 3/27/09 argument was rejected? Since no mention is made to the 3/27 response/argument I must assume that he forgot? Perhaps he wants to keep secret his view on what a processing unit is?

I would think that we ought to demand some kind of reply to the 3/27 response before arguing the same prior art again. ????????

Am I misreading the office action? Anyone have any thoughts on the above?

GLTA, Opty