"Why hasn't anyone caught this, or said anything?"

I assume with "anyone" you're referring to TPL/PTSC or the USPTO because this is actually the THIRD time I've raised this issue since March.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know which version of Claim 29 is better for our side, but I assume the original one would be more inclusive, and thus better. Perhaps you or ease or someone versed in these issues could speak to that.

However, going back and researching the documents in the last re-exam process and the NIRC, it DOES appear to reference that it is reviewing and utilizing the Claim 29 language as amendede July 21, 2009, for the basis of this last re-exam. With that as the reference, it leaves Claim 29 unamended and confirms it as patentable.

That means to me that indeed the AMENDED CLAIM 29 language issued on July 21, 2009, is the intended re-certified language.

HOWEVER, with the official gazette issuing the ORIGINAL Claim 29 language, it may be that whether intentional or not, THAT becomes the "Official" version of the claim. I don't know if this would be similar to the "a synchronous" versus "asynchronous" typo that had to be corrected in the original recertification of one of the other patents.

Which is the better version of Claim 29?

I suppose whichever is better for us would be the one we'd want. Perhaps the Official Gazette is simply an incorrect typo, and it doesn't matter as the re-certification clearly communcates the amended language is what applies, or perhaps the typo creates a new issue that must be addressed.

At the end of the day, I hope whatever is best for us is what applies!