"independent"---Self-Governing; also: not affiliated with a larger controlling unit 2: not requiring or relying on something else.

The cusp of Mr. Moore's argument and one that the EDOT saw our way. The examiner is encouraging Mr. Moore to change terminology, IMO, opening the door for a potential weakening of the patent. The definition being used is exactly as Mr. Moore intended and 100% self explanatory, "Independent". It bothers the hell out of me that the USPTO jumps all over the '584 EDOT bandwagon yet completely ignores the EDOT's '336 interpretation. While I admire Mr. Moore for sticking to his guns, it's the issue that the non-inventor is left to interprete that which he did not create that makes my stomach ache. For people to keep stating their positive Mr. Moore will convince the examiner is silly. Unless you can get inside that person's head it doesn't matter what we think of Charles Moore. If this was a grand slam I don't think Mr. Goerner would have made his infamous statement a few weeks ago. The examiner certainly seems intent on giving TPL a run for their money.