I don't think so but I could be wrong...I do know that the examiner cited 11 different references that he used to show "anticipation" of our claim #29 in the 584 patent ...we rebutted each of those with a 75 page response to the examiner...there was no "compromising" in our rebuttal to the examiner...further ARM then sent aletter to us asking that the results of the appeal on 584 to the federal appeals court (which we lost) be submitted to the PTO as part of the examiners file...which we at first did not do but seems that subsequently it was sent as part of the examiners file...our approach seemed to be a definitive rebuttal to the exmainers claim to keep our claim #29 intact in order to keep the "bite" in the 584 patent, any lessening of the claim or admittance to any one of the references as being anticipatory would have snuffed out the claim from the beginning....the latest final rejection seems to be that the examiner has now taken all the submittals from us into account and has rejected #29 on any one of the prior cited 11 references...could be even more than one of them...our next step is now to either accept the PTO's rejection of that claim or have another face to face to try and convince those at the PTO of our side of the argument on the spoecific refences the exmainer used in his final rejection....whether or not the loss at the appeals court entered into the decision of the PTO is anyone's guess...but I assume it would have in some fashion.

JMHO