There seems to be some concern whether the language used in our last communication to the USPTO was appropriate. For those who are honestly concerned, (not those who just like to argue and blow smoke) I would like to point out the following.

First, the latest 336 reexam was ordered based on SNQs that do not exist.

Second, the information as to why there were no SNQs was in plain sight of the examiner, not hidden from him.

Third, and most importantly, the examiner appeared ready to issue a first office action rejection. I think this for two reasons. There was a litigation search which usually preceeds an action. And the communication from Henneman immediately following the litigation search. Why did Henneman wait to provide the information that NO SNQs EXIST? In all liklihood he assumed that the reexam order would be voided or an NIRC issued. Isn't that what we all were expecting at the time? Knowing that a rejection was in the works, would surely have prompted Henneman to act as he did.

If indeed, the examiner was about to issue an office action rejection based on a reexam order that never should have happened, would anyone here think anything of it? Simply the USPTO going about their business? We are talking bizzare stuff here, IMHO.

But some may have a different definition of Bizzare than mine.

Opty