I don't mean to insult if you're already aware and/or this has already been discussed, but from a strategic view, it is apparently common for the Patent Owner to decline the option of providing a statement during that two month window. The reason being that if a statement is submitted, not only might it provide ammo for the requester of reexam (for future use with the PTO or in court), but it opens a door to the requestor. If a statement is submitted, the requester then is presented the option of a response, which supposedly could include a mod to the original reexam request such that material of the statement is overcome.

After our experience with this exact scenario on PTSC, the failure to provided a statement might be smart, and it might not. The route taken, not providing a statement, may be very wise in the instant situation. BUT, if a statement is provided, and the requester then provides a response that appears to make the reexam more difficult, any new valid claims can be addressed and hopefully overcome and you're closer to the finish line in the whole process. But, as it is, having provided no response, there is another consideration - the prospect of a follow-on reexam request on the heels of an NIRC in the current reexam, with the follow-on based on exactly the info that would have been contained in the response to a statement.

I realize the above may be difficult to comprehend due to complexity, but I believe I've described the situation fairly well. The reexam game can become virtually never-ending. And the game is largely "about the clock" - burning time as the PTO churns away at a crawl.

I could go into detail about what PTSC ended up going through (an unnecessary delay of about one year), IMO largely due to failure to provide a statement which SHOULD have killed the reexam in its infancy. But the delay was more due to stupidity at the PTO. Once the stupidity was (pointed out) discovered, things moved along pretty quickly.

I hope the above is helpful.

SGE