I'm concernd that Moore and crew might get mired in too much minutiae and miss the heart of the matter. I would think the appeal could be quite simple and straightforward. The examiner used improper prior art (Kato). Kato's clocking system is synchronous. The examiner even admits this. The 336 clocking system is asynchronous. Provide back up that explains asynchronous clocking systems. Perhaps include IBM's patent 7467277 as as another example of asynchronous clocking systems.

Don't see the need to argue what connected means, what independent means etc.. If you do not succeed in getting reversed on the basis of improper prior art, then arguing the other stuff is not going to do any good. And unless they can come up with appropriate prior art, all the rest is mute.

Here are the examiner's choices post appeal brief:

After an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37 has been filed and the examiner has considered the issues on appeal, the examiner may:

(A) reopen prosecution to enter a new ground of rejection with approval from the supervisory patent examiner (see MPEP § 1207.04);

(B) withdraw the final rejection and allow the application if the examiner determines that the rejections have been overcome and no new ground of rejection is appropriate; or

(C) maintain the appeal by conducting an appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) and draft an examiner's answer (MPEP § 1207.02). Any examiner's answer mailed on or after September 13, 2004 may include a new ground of rejection (MPEP § 1207.03).

GLTA Opty