"The fact that these two wonderful paragraphs (at the bottom)are what maybe got the J's to ask for the 30 Motion to Stay, is in  IMHO the reason we can even discuss settlment scenarios."

I know you have stated this in the past, but I have to admit I don't follow you here. IMO all this is saying is that the Markman claims conctruction was adopted by the USPTO for their review meaning that claims 1-28 are not being reviewed as they have been agreed to in Texas. Claim 29 is being reviewed by the USPTO and can kill this patent if the USPTO rules that prior art did in fact exist. I am encouraged in that our response IMO appears to be solid and prove that prior art did not exist therefore vailidating the "584, but I don't understand how the USPTO's acceptance of the Markman Claims Construction for the "584 has any relevance with a settlement, expecially in light of the fact that the USPTO has not rulled on the "584 meaning nothing has changed and clam 29 is still up in the air. Help please. Thanks in advance! Good luck to you, me, us, and all longs.