Just to clarify: There has been no communication by the requestor except for the first request which was incomplete and the corrected request.

They could have made another statement/argument if we responded to the determination to grant the request before the next OA (which we didn't, probably to prevent that from happening).

After reading the determination to grant the reex, it had to be granted only on a technicality due to what was officially on record for examiner Peikari to refer to, in order to make his determination which was to grant the reex on Nov. 14, 2009. The wheels were already in motion to officially issue a recert which came soon after on Nov. 24, 2009. The onus is on the patent owner, who is entitled to inform the Office all in due time, why it shouldn't have been granted, which Henneman has done in his latest response. It's all going according to standard procedures IMHO.

The only question I have is why they changed examiners? It seems to me Rimell would have denied this request. I have yet to come across the USPTO policy in regards to changing examiners and I welcome anyone to post it if they find/know it. I'm sure Fish & Richardson know all about it if it does exist.

GLTAL