<See Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984).>

In case anyone was wondering what the legal precedent said, here is the important part.

<"The mere fact that a worker in the art could rearrange the parts of the reference device to meet the terms of the claims on appeal is not by itself sufficient to support a finding of obviousness. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant's specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device." >

I believe that rearranging the old art equates to rearranging the parts quoted in the legal precedent. Also, if you read the 336 grant of reexam, the examiner makes note of the fact that there is no basis provided in the request to combine the prior art. Perhaps he made those notations for a reason.

IMHO, Opty