While the 336 rejection contains a number of faulty arguments, it does contain one that is linked to the 148 rejection. That is "what constitutes a central processing unit CPU." Both patents contain claims which include CPU and both patents have been rejected using prior art that does not contain a CPU. I suspect that the same arugments in the 148 response will be used in the 336 appeal. The 148 response is due shortly and I hope the arguments are VERY convincing and are worded in such a way as to make it impossible for a counter argument by the examiner. GLTA Opty