<In regards to this right justification, I couldn't believe the lower court and the appeal court went along with ARM's view point. It appears that the USPTO examiner did not. The question is will that make a difference to the appeals court. Would they dismiss it as already being adjudicated>

So, I think you are saying that because Judge Ward decided how certain terms were to be defined for that specific case, thus the California Court and any other Court must use the same definition??? And the patent has been amended. Does that mean that all interpetation of claims should be as previously written or as presently written???

What did you do to get underlining to persist so???

Opty