Back to looking at the latest office action in 90/008227.
Been thinking about the rehashing of stuff that was already argued. And I find it interesting that had the examiner acknowledged the 3/27/09 response and accepted our definition of CPU, he would have a hard time accepting the LISP prior art which was presented in 90/010562. Quote from LISP "the execution unit consists primarily of the ALU and rotator/masker..."
So, assuming that our definition of a CPU is still OK (no reason to assume it isn't), then we should be able to apply that same definition/argument to the LISP prior art. But I can see where the examiner might not be confortable rejecting the request for reexam using a definition of CPU from a yet incomplete reexam and a definition that perhaps he has not yet fully bought into. Or has bought into, but isn't comfortable arguing that an ALU does not fit the definition.
Perhaps the merging and rehashing is more logical than I first thought if it avoids another suspended finality, a la the 336.
Upon reading the office action I thought the LISP prior art was going to be a problem for us. After looking closer, I no longer think that. I'm somewhat relieved. If anyone wants to punch holes in anything that I just said, PLEASE WAIT UNTIL AFTER CHRISTMAS.
GLTA, Merry Christmas, Opty
