Canceling claim #3 leaves me feeling rather ill.

But Virt we knew that. From wolf's PACER

On August 14, 2009, the Examiner published the summary of an August 6, 2009 interview stating that asserted claims 1, 6, and 10 would be allowed as amended by the examiner. The summary does not indicate the proposed amendment suggested by the examiner. Asserted claims, 3, 7, and 9 would be canceled. On August 19, the PTO granted TPL’s request for a one month extension of time, to September 23, to file an appeal brief pending the possible issuance of a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (“NIRC”). The PTO has not yet issued a NIRC.

and again

The patent examiner has assured TPL on multiple occasions that the PTO will issue a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate (“NIRC”) within the next few weeks for the ’336 patent, effectively concluding all re-examinations on that patent. First, at the August 6, 2009 examiner interview, the patent examiner reached an agreement with TPL regarding the patentability of asserted claims 1, 6, and 10 in addition to claims 11-12, 16-17, and 19-20 from the ‘336 patent. The examiner further indicated that all outstanding issues were resolved regarding the ‘336 patent and that he would shortly issue a NIRC. Second, the patent examiner’s published interview notes, which were posted on August 13, 2009, confirm that the PTO intends to reissue the aforementioned claims from the ‘336 patent and that the examiner would prepare the NIRC action. Third, the patent examiner re-confirmed on a teleconference with TPL in the last week that he intends to issue the NIRC on the ‘336 patent in the next few weeks. Thus, the Defendants have a reasonable basis to believe that the ‘336 patent will reissue shortly. Therefore, the Defendants support a brief extension of the current stay, no longer than 45 days, to allow that to occur as the issuance of the NIRC may expedite the eventual resolution of this action. TPL opposes an indefinite stay or another 3-month stay pending final conclusion of the various reexamination proceedings, as all indications are that TPL’s adversaries have seized upon the reexamination process to tie these patents up inside the PTO for an extended period of time, and there is no timetable for the resolution of all the other pending re-examinations. Nevertheless, TPL acknowledges that clarity on the ‘336 patent’s claims may expedite the eventual resolution of this dispute. Furthermore, the pending allowance of the ‘336 patent claims may impact settlement positions. Those claims closely track Judge Ward’s already-issued claim constructions, and will likely act to expedite the claim construction process. Thereafter, this case should resume as quickly as possible. As shown by the three additional requests for reexamination filed just since the Motions to Stay were first brought in early May,