The way this response is written the first couple of pages deal with the interview prior to the final rejection like a backdrop to the current response. But discussion of that interview clearly ends and arguments follow. In the course of those arguments there are statments which, to me, are telling.
"As a result of the most recent interview, patent owners now believe that the Examiner fully appreciates that the mere serial data processing circuit 120 of Uhlenhoff is not a CPU. Therefore, because neither Bagula or Uhlenhoff (even when combined) disclose providing a ring oscillator to the CPU, patent owners respectfully request reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 4 ......"
And this.
" Although patent owners believe that the Examiner now fully appreciates that the ring oscillator of Uhlenhoff does not provide a System" clock (which should be sufficient to resolve the reexamination proceeding) ........"
While such interview is not yet posted on IFW, it appears to me that there was an interview subsequent to the final rejection. If so, then this submission was expected by the examiner and from the wording, one would assume he no longer is in disagreement with the arguments presented.
Opty
