Let's put this to rest....Eggbert, you are correct

I was hesitant about telling anyone that I had a second conversation with the examiner, only because I thought it might start a string of questions which could not be answered at this time. However, since the question was raised again about whether or not the granting of the new reexam was based on the amended claims, I thought I should mention this.

Last week I spoke with Mr. Peikari for the second time. First and foremost, let me say that Mr. Peikari is easy to talk to, however, he made it perfectly clear that we must speak in terms of generalities and not specifics about the case (336). He said that if he was to speak to anyone about a specific case that he was working on, he could possibly be removed from the case and it would be re-assigned to another examiner. All the more reason for limiting calls to him if at all. He is prohibited from speaking about a case and we must use the public pair system to find the specific information.

That being said, in general terms, he told me: If a reisssue certificate had not actually reissued when a decision needed to be made to grant a reexam, it would not be considered. If something issued (i.e. reissue certificate) during a reexam, it would be considered as part of the proceedings.

As for me, I see no reason to call Mr. Peikari again.

Laurie