In addition to your response to the deleted parent, I just wanted to clarify the procedural reasons why this rejection is temporary: Basically this rejection wa

In addition to your response to the deleted parent, I just wanted to clarify the procedural reasons why this rejection is temporary: Basically this rejection was a result of an "ex parte" re-examination. The catch is that not only does a 3rd party (typically the alleged infringer) get a shot at invalidating the claims, the patent owner also gets to argue back, and if unsuccessful, even to redraft them to be valid again in light of the new prior art. Typically they will be redrafted to sidestep prior art, yet still cover the allegedly infringing products.