<In summary, the examiner doesn't reject our claims based on Kato or Ledzius alone,,,,he is taking both patents and when he combines what both teach he rejects our claims, 1-10, based on obviousness of someone with ordinary skill combining them into what we call our 336 patent.

It's the "obviousness" argument we'll have to win with the examiner/PTO. Neither one of these patents could overrule our 336, IMO. Together, they make a case for the examiner's findings.>

But in overcoming the obviousness claim with the combination, I believe one (well at least me anyway) needs to first understand the shortcomings of each patent individually. I'm looking at Ledzius now. Perhaps this is not the correct way for CM to approach the obviousness question, but I could not possibly deal with the combination before looking at the what each patent provides/lacks.

Do you believe the combination of these two patents makes a good case for achieving the benefits of the 336? And do you think achieving the benefits has anything to do with the degree of obviousness? Would like to hear your thoughts on these questions. TIA. Opty