Well, if it is as Ease suggests and this was the claim in major contention in the Markman (and perhaps the phrase requiring scrutiny is in this claim), then this initial USPTO finding should be no surprise. 

One would think that, when litigants made the re-exam request to the USPTO, that the request came with some basis. And it stands to reason that the basis would be the same as their arguing point in Markman submittals and in the Markman hearing itself.

The focus of all the resources available has probably been dedicated to this  claim since before the Markman, and certainly after.

So, when our guys go to the USPTO for one-on-one work, it'll be a great "dry run" for when and if it gets to court.

One thought crosses my mind.....  Wouldn't this signal to our team that perhaps it's now time to file for SJ (end run through the court)?

But I KNOW nuttin'!  'Cept this USPTO should come as no surprise, and is nothing to get too excited about, i.e., if you were to get excited about it, it should have been about a month ago.

SGE 

SGE