Much of the rejection was based on prior art that was missing too many elements of the claim or based on claim wording that does not yet exist. But one of the rejections I found to be very interesting.

From page 10 of the reexam rejection:

<Given the lack of any logical basis for obviousness, a reasonable examiner would not consider the proposed combination important in evaluating the patentability of claim 7.>

I think the examiner saying that there has to be a logical basis for combining prior art? This point may be important in determining whether to allow reexam of an amended claim, assuming that the 336 gets the recertification with proposed amendments. Even if the combination of prior art has all the elements of the claim, there has to be some logic to making the combination, otherwise there is no basis for obviousness.

How do others read it?

Opty