Seems like there are at least a few posting their opinions that the amended claim 29 must be weaker. I have yet to see anyone point to the new language and analyze it to show why it is weaker. Their objective view is based soley on the fact that it needed to be amended. And IMHO that is not an objective view.

I'm maxed out on shares and I'm not an EE, so I have no intention of attempting to disect the language in the final claim. But let's look at exactly what the circumstantial evidence really says.

Remember the Markman and the appeal? You recall what that was all about? Then read the proposed claims of 9/27/07. Notice claim 29 is unchanged. But rather than change 29, They added a slew of new claims. Then take note of new claims 30, 32, 41, 43, 50 and 52. Notice the right justification phrase in those claims. Then look at the 4/21/09 intent to certify. Notice that all the new claims are gone. Look for the key phrase in amended claim 29. That's right. It's not there. The circumstantial evidence indicates that Moore initially felt a certain phrase was necessary to get 29 approved and, in the end, it was not. Weaker?

GLTA Opty