I assume that the following phrase, found in claim 1, 20 and 29 is key to infringement. Given the claim construction appeal, I think it is a good assumption.

<said operand or instruction being located a predetermined position from a boundary of said instruction groups;>

If a company infringed on the same phrase in all three claims, would not including the other 2 claims be duplicative? Even if the infringer knew that both 1 and 20 include the same key phrase, if 29 is changed to my benefit, would it not impact the meaning of the same phrase in unamended claims 1 and 20 as well?

Example. An attempt was made to amend claim 29 by including right justification verbage. Had that amendment been accepted by the PTO, don't you think it would have negatively impacted claims 1 and 20 as well, even though they stand unamended? But IMHO, the opposite happened. Right justification requirement is now negated by the wording of claim 29. Would that not have a beneficial impact on unamended claims 1 and 20?

Opty