I misspoke hence am repasting yesterday's post with correction in Bold and underlined. I meant to say 584 NIRC not 749 NIRC. Sorry about that.

<Sure is interesting.

My guess is multiple reexaminations and recertifications are not the norm. Since the last reexam had no amendments claim 29 was recertified w/o amendment. Somebody overlooked the fact that the claim was already amended when last reexamined. Why hasn't anyone caught this, or said anything? I believe the amended claim language was beneficial to our cause re Judge Ward's construction. If the Official Gazette is the official document, then Judge Ward's construction is not presently at odds with the current claim language as I had thought.

I wonder if the USPTO screwed up on purpose? The reason I say that is because they purposely included some land mines in the 584 NIRC document. An issue which Henneman brought to their attention, but whose communication is not being made public nor corrections made to the NIRC.

How convenient for ARM.

I'll try to bring this to PTSC's attention on Monday.

Opty>