do not believe the 584 is in play for the current litigation. My understanding is we stipulated that we would not sue for the 584. And IMO we did so because the 584 was still being reexamined and were not ready to defend it until the final wording of claim 29 was known.

Correcions welcomed.

I posted the stipulation. Please show me where it says we would not sue on the 584(ever). The reason we stipulated was because claims definitions in the Markman .

Why dont you feel the 584 is in play in this current litigatio? Have you read the current markman pacers??

From Defendents reply Jan 17, 2012

1. The claim limitation refers to an “instruction register,” not “operands” or “instruction
groups.” ............................................................................................................................... 16
2. Judge Ward’s construction of “instruction group” is inapplicable to the construction of
```the term “instruction register.” ............................................................................................ 17
a. Significant differences in the claimed subject matter of the ’749 and ’584 patents require
separate constructions. ........................................................................................................ 17
b. Judge Ward’s construction of the term “instruction group” from the ’584 patent) to
include right-justification of data may have been consistent with the ’584 claim
language—but is not the structural “instruction register” of the ’749 patent. ..................... 17
E. Multiple Sequential Instructions. ............................................................................................ 18