<there is precedent to incorporate limitations from "sister" patents that are deemed similiar enough for "common sense" to be used.>

I have no reason to doubt there is precedent for what you suggest.

However, as you say, there has to be similarity. Similarity beyond a shared parent. That is what I was getting at in my prior post. I just don’t see the similarity.

But an interesting thought just came to my mind. Judge Ware does not have to accept Judge Ward’s construction on anything in that case. And there is good reason not to for claim 29 of the 584. While Ward’s construction may have fit within the language of claim 29 back then, it clearly is at odds with the amended claim language, imo.

Opty