My initial posted comments on the comparison of the original and amended Claim 29 of patent '584 were a limited look through the isolated window of the MICROLOOP instruction reference, Which I believe was the primary basis of TPL's response to the examiner's recertification notes that singled out the MICROLOOP instruction and to stipulated that this was only an example of the many types of instructions (opcodes) that could be accessed and executed. In this respect I believe it was TPL's objective to qualify the examiner's recertification language referencing the MICROLOOP by opposing that particular instruction type as the only type the invention uses, and that the amended language adding the defining "first" term is limited to that instruction type and does not properly define all of the other possible instruction types that are not addressed to the "first' position in the instruction group. In short, TPL is alluding to what Dispain states, that the "predetermined position" for instructions may reside at locations other than the beginning of the group.

I did not consider the ramifications of instruction types outside the MICROLOOP instruction type context in my initial post. I believe that some of the posted responses to my initial post were attempting to point this out. Those responses were quite valid, and I thank those posters for prompting further comment.

I attempted to convey in my initial post that, in the context of the MICROLOOP example, the "first" position within the group of instructions did not appear to be an issue since the looping function implied that the first position is likely to be used by default, thus, in my opinion, not a narrowing of the claim IN THAT EXAMPLE.

However, when applied to other possible instructions, as those in Dispain's examples, this "first" position is not always valid for the location of the opcode and/or operand. In short, our original Claim 29 language accommodates all "predetermined position from the boundary of the instruction group" possibilities when considering the range of instruction types used in microprocessing, but our amended language would seem to be the result of a directive by the USPTO, saying in effect, if the patent is to survive, it will do so only if you align the language with the MICROLOOP instruction type (or any others that use, by default, the first position in the group as the location of the branching), otherwise the Pomerene and Sachs prior art examples will render it unpatentable. I want to be clear that this is my opinion based on my interpretation of the document I have acquired from PAIR.

In light of the additions and clarifications of my thoughts and opinions in this post, I would suggest that we might indeed have a weakened '584 patent based on the submitted amended language of Claim 29. What I cannot determine is the weight of TPL's response, when added to the record of the re-certified patent, stating that the "first" location applies only in the MICROLOOP example, and implying that it does not apply to any of the other possible instruction types used by a microprocessor, and what will happen next. Does this augment the amended language by attaching it to the recertification record, and does it have any legal weight during enforcement? Is there another step prior to the fully completed recertification, or another round of reexamination to counter TPL's qualifying statement? This is where the patent process escapes me due to my lack of intimate knowledge of the PTO processes and the legal parameters surrounding it.

I noted in my initial post that the amended Claim 29 included other additional terms such as "literal", "accessed" and also "at least". My opinion of these is that they are of little consequence to the meaning of the Claim.

Good luck to us all.

Cheers,

DG