And one more thing regarding the 584.

On 4/28 a letter was posted in which we commented on the 4/21 NIRC. In that letter we made reference to the microloop example used by the examiner in the NIRC. If a microloop instruction is contained in position 4 it branches back to beginning of instruction group, position 1. That letter makes it very clear that the examiner used microloop as and example and that is all it is. The approval is based on the language of claim 29 not the illustrative example.

Would we have bothered providing the added clarification if the patent was toothless? And the significace of making that point? Position 4 is right justified. We are not limited to right justification, and it was necessary to make that perfectly clear.

As dilusional as it might be, I am trying to consider different possible outcomes of negotiations with ARM. And that line of thought certainly presents exciting opportunities!

Opty