PTAB affirms examiner in Ex parte Lockwood concerning US patent 7010508, reexam 90/012,671
The vintage of the prior art (Johnson) is seen by reference to a PDP 11/23.
In footnote 6, PTAB declines to consider prosecution history for purposes of claim construction, because reexamination is de novo examination.
The crux of the debate was whether or not to import the adjective "remote" into the claim element "stored data." The examiner and PTAB declined to do so, and Johnson was found to anticipate claim 8 and also claims 9-14.
No separate arguments were made for the rejection of claim 15 for obviousness, which also fell.
In passing, one notes an allusion to rule 56 on disclosure appears in footnote 4.