All of the prior art, with the exception of McDermott, has been considered. And I don't see what teachings in McDermott that might apply. I'm wondering if the examiner truely sees something new in a rehash of the same stuff?

I assume there is a purpose for an examiner to list all the prior art he considered before issuing an NIRC. So if the current examiner is just disregarding it, I would hope that we lodge a complaint of some kind. Should be interesting to read what this new examiner sees that Rimell did not.

GLTA, Opty