I was going to give this a rest, but as long as people are praising your work, I am going to have to jump back in.

The Texas court construed one of the terms of claim 29 to our detriment. Moore considered that when he added the new claims. Trying to avoid amending claim 29. Now go to page 5 of the 12/5/09 final rejection. You will find the following examiner statement.

" In many instances, it appears that the patent owner is relying on obviousness. As an example in claim 30 that the instruction register obviously includes a plurality of arrays and operand in one of the arrays is right justified. However, obviousness is not the test for written description."

The examiner is saying there is nothing in the patent to back up that right justification clause. We could not add right justified to claim 29 even if we wanted to.

The net is as big as it ever was, and stronger to boot. But only IMHO Opty