Looks like there was a symantics problem, IMO.

Are two separately placed clocks which synchronize periodically "independent"? My thought would be that they operate independently except during the nanosecond in which they periodically sync.

But what strikes me is that the prior art claim depicts a constant ratio of interdependence between the two clocks - never truly independent in function, but only in their placement in the device.

I could see where this would be a tough thing to explain, and why Moore stuck to his guns, refusing to amend the claim.

And Opty is correct, in that IMO PTO people that are more skiled in the art would have a better chance of "getting it". I'm technically ignorant, but I think I get it.

More time required, it appears. And a rejection would prompt further action towards getting this patent claim/issue in the eyes and ears of the technically astute.

Things to consider:

Are the other claims of the '336, not in dispute per this specific ascertion of prior art, being infringed? It only takes one solid claim...

Does the '336 really matter, in the scheme of things, if the '148 comes out solid (or with one solid infringed claim)? IMO, it only takes one hit to get a home run.

FWIW, and I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE