What it means is that the Court Affirms (agrees) with the District Courts definition of claim 29 as limiting it to the Markman ruling on right justified. If you listen to the Oral Arguement you will note that ARM's Attorney trys to get the Court to expand that to include other issues which the Judges seem to reject out off hand when he brought the issues up. All the ruling does is affirm the definition given claim 29 by the District Court in Markman. Infringe or not was not the issue before the Court. Corrections welcome.