I've been kicking this around in my leisure moments for a few days now.

We have the re-cert published in the Gazette for the last re-exam, plus the new re-exam supposedly in process (?) which is founded all or in part on prior art believed to have been examined (and documented so) in the prior re-exam (history file). Per the last re-exam, the '336 has been amended to some degree (and, it seems, most believe the amendments are not significant and only better clarify the claims of the patent - and this is substantiated to a degree by the fact that the PTO did not identify the '336 with a new patent number/issue date, but retained the old, suggesting that the patent was not altered to degree adequate to prompt issuance as a "new" patent).

What are the possibilities?

1. Rejection of the latest re-exam request due to the simple fact that it has been amended, with new words/claim numbers, and the request should be adjusted accordingly.

2. Rejection of the latest re-exam request due to the simple fact that the prior art cited was considered in the prior re-exam process.

[Here I'll throw in my thought that it just seems logical that the examiner, when performing the prior re-exam, would have considered all available thought process sequences, e.g., prior art A in light of prior B in light of prior art C, B-C-A, C-B-A. C-A-B and B-A-C. Why would they not do this recognizing what would probably come next from the "accuser", and in their quest to (figuratively, perhaps literally) defeat the validity of the patent? Various prior art was placed on the table; why would they not twist and turn it sequence-wise without a specific prompt to do so? And if they didn't do this as a concerted effort, how could a thinking person NOT do this intuitively?]

3. Continuation of a full-blown re-exam.

[However, based on the re-exam process, the inventor has 60 days in which to submit a statement (or not) in response to what the "accuser" has cited, and one would think that the inventor (our team) - if they opted to submit a statement - would point out the concerns of the two possibilities above, and perhaps more. I assume the 60 day clock started ticking the day the latest re-exam request was approved (which was when?).]

4. Continuation of a full-blown re-exam sans a statement from the inventor, which could result in the examiner either coming to the same conclusions of possibilities 1 and 2 above - just delayed 60+ days OR pursuing a 1 year+ re-exam process.

Are these all the possibilities?

If possibility 1 or 2 actually happened, is it reasonable to expect it to happen pretty soon?

What is the application number for the latest '336 re-exam request? Seems we should be watching PAIR real close for a couple of these possibilities being revealed.

Presented for everyone's consideration/comment/correction (please). I'd also appreciate answers to the answerable questions (dates/numbers highlighted above - I could search them out myself, but I'm sure a few people have these at their fingertips and IMO it would be good for them to be identified for ALL).

This exercise may make it a little easier for people to wrap their heads around where we're at, what could happen, what likely WILL happen and/or what likely WON'T happen.

I personally could use the help - 'cuz I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE