While the technical aspect of the examiner's conclusions appear to be flawed, according to some agora posters, it is safe to say that some of these decisions are subjective. IMO we've just seen how complex the "obviousness" issue can be. When someone is left to determine what they deem to be obvious, how can facts sway their opinion? Unfortunately for PTSC and other patent holders, it appears this is a very grey area.

It would appear that the examiner hasn't comprehended the technical specification of the clocks in the '336 patent, which has nothing to do with obviousness or subjectivity. It's like him saying that because he's found the number 10 (ten), it will be the same every time it is found while totally disregarding the possibility of binary 10 (two) which is not the same and has a different use.

Be well