As explained by those with the requisite knowledge and experience, the examiner, for whatever reason, is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the correct interpretation of the clocks.

Working backwards, if his interpretation of the clocking system is inaccurate, the rest of the argument fails ie he started with a conclusion and articulated his version in an attempt to substantiate it, in my very humble opinion.

This is all good, however, doesn't the USPTO's interpretation trump TPL's/Moores even if "we" think it is incorrect? In other words, they have the last say no matter what. If no one at the USPTO agrees with us - it's pretty much a done deal.