thought.  Some have noted the timing of the mailing of the USPTO non-final action - but with the thought that it prompted the settlement by the Js (if I understood the conjecture correctly).  IMO, the timing is off.

Here's the thought:  Maybe it's the other way around.  Maybe the settlement prompted this USPTO action.  Remember who originally requested the re-exams (PUBPAT came later - and were not a direct participant in the associated litigation).

Something to mull....

And there's probably nothing to it.

And I KNOW nuttin'!

Except that this communication from the USPTO and the time allotted for a response suggests to me that we won't get "satisfaction" from the USPTO anytime soon (rendering it more-or-less a non-issue, IMO). 

SGE