<Guys and Gals, when you cancel claims and add new ones it is to narrow the patents scope so that it can pass through the "minefield" that is prior art and/or obviousness.>

Never for clarification of what the claim is claiming? Or even if cancelled claim info is inserted elsewhere?

I got the impression that your comments are provided w/o the benefit of reading what the patent says. If so, I strongly suggest you take the time to read it. Then point out to us how is has been narrowed.

In any case, I would prefer the wording of the patent to be such that it leaves absolutely no wiggle room for any infringer to claim non-infrigement in court. I believe the recertified 336 does exactly that and I don't see where the net is any smaller than before. But I'm willing to hear arguments as to how and where the 336's scope has been narrowed.

GLTA, Opty