The write up by the examiner sounds more involved than it really is.

He's arguing why the control signals in Kajigaya can be interpeted as predefined sequence of instructions. His justification for using Kajigaya is based on what the 148 patent claims do not say about instructions being executed and instructions being stored. Had those limitations been included, the examiner would not be able to use Kajigaya.

At first I thought that claims 4 and 8 might have to be ammended. (perhaps what the examiner is hoping for) While there is a basis in the patent to ammend the claims to distinguish it from Kajigaya, Moore only needs convince the examiner that Kajigaya's RAC circuit is not a central processing unit. And in that case, there no longer exists a need to distinguish it. All the rest falls away.

I believe executing instructions is, and always was, the primary function of the CPU. Moore should be able to provide sufficient documentation to satisfy the examiner that his prior art is not a CPU.

So I'm quite hopeful of getting the OK w/o any ammendments. All IMHO Opty