< While not understanding all the technicalities of what each claim means, it seems the prevailing though arguably "finite" wisdom here is that it may in one sense limit the patent's applicablitly, it should also strengthen the argument of infringement againt those who do infringe, by eliminating the shades of gray they may raise in their counter arguments.>

The new 584 patent may not be limiting at all. I still don't understand why only claim 29 was chosen to be reexamined. Claim 1 and claim 20 basically say the same thing as the original claim 29. The way I see it, any that infringed on the original claim 29 infringed on 1 and 20 as well. Those that infringe on 1 and 20 may also infringe on amended 29, but I would keep claim 29 in my back pocket as the counter to any claim construction that requires right justification. The present wording of claim 29 makes that construction totally baseless. All IMHO.

Opty