<The statements we made during the reexaminations are being used against us. >

I disagree with the wording, and that the above statement is fact. What I believe to be a correct statement would be - The opposition is proposing the court use statements made by the examiner to narrow claim scope in a couple of instances. Examiners' statements are not the same as statements we make. Vastly different. Furthermore, our aruguments as to why the court should not consider any of these examiner statements as a disavowel were sound, imo.

<The ruling by Judge Ward with respect to the 584 is being used against us for the 749.>

They can't use Judge Ward's ruling against us unless Judge Ware includes it in his claim construction. Perhaps better wording would be - The opposition is proposing the court import Judge Ward's claim construction for instruction groups into one of the 749 claims. I can not find any basis for the court to do so. Nothing in the claim even hints at it, nothing in the specification hints at it and nothing in the 749 prosecution even hints at it. Where does Ware get the authority to import that extraneous claim language? If none of the intrinsic evidence even hints at it, why would Ware continue to look. I do not believe Judge Ward's claim construction in a different patent is intrinsic evidence. IMO. In any case, TPL aruguments were sound.

Since claim consturction is on many minds, some may want a link to review or refresh what our arguments were. Opty

http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/topics/512672-new-pacer-defendants%E2%80%99-opening-claim-construction-brief-for-the-%E2%80%9Ctop-ten%E2%80%9D-terms/messages/1628016