So the inaction of the examiner on a re-exam that should never have been approved in the first place is okay with you.....

You - with your contact who is supposedly skilled in the art.

You - who who advised that near term success in this re-exam was a "slam dunk" - in October '09.

You - who blatantly bashed PTSC in December '09, and advised of your intent to do it again when it fits your needs, 10 times if unopposed, 25 times if opposed.

Have you read Henneman's transmittal of 3/2/10? Has your contact read it? Is it not written such that one NOT necessarily skilled in the art could easily conclude that "there's something wrong with this picture"?

Is the time lapse of 16 weeks since receipt of that transmittal by the examiner, with continuing inaction, totally acceptable to you? Or does it indeed serve to create suspicions? Is it within reason to develop suspicions, recognizing that in the case of the '336, two separate statutory instructions are being/have been clearly ignored?

Is saying "...creates suspicions...of possible..." an accusation? Really?

Recognize that the request for re-exam cites three pieces of prior art, each of which must be valid/actionable (SNQ) in order for the re-exam to be approved, i.e., the three pieces must all be part of the "package" to constitute justification for re-exam. If one piece is not valid, the basis probably falls apart. Here ALL THREE pieces were previously examined and overcome - none are valid/actionable (SNQ).

Do you really think the examiner will ever even see any of our letters? I seriously doubt it.

Where you work, if there are suspicions of wrong-doing by an employee and virtually ALL the evidence to support the suspicions is available as public record, do they research the evidence first, or simply confront the employee with the suspicions (leaving themselves open to possible legal action by the employee - here a Government employee who is a member of a bargaining unit/labor union)?

If it is determined that this re-exam is bogus or taking far too long to be prosecuted considering the circumstances, what is the likely remedy? Legal action against the overworked, apparently ignorant employee who failed to comply with policy? Or expedited corrective action to resolve the concern? I strongly suspect the latter. Possibly followed by some refresher training of the employee.

So you'd rather we sit back and do nothing? And you think our actions to date are inappropriate? And apparently four people agree with you.

Okay.

BTW, I strongly suspect that if any of our actions to date were inappropriate, Bahr would have advised of same and cut us off. He didn't.

SGE