I fully understand the issues being argued, and my post via phone was in reply to a post that I deemed uninformed. I believe the T3 arguments regarding the examiner's statements in the general summary are not enough, so I think the 336 and 148 are good.

The 749 and 890 are both being attacked via the "right justified" term construed by Judge Ward. The 749 and 890 (890 not fully) technologies are being used in lieu of the 584 to attempt to get "around" the 584 to assert infringement against the T3. This goes back to our posts regarding the relationship between the 584 and 749. There is absolutely a relationship as the 584 (child patent) carved out specific technology out of the 749 (parent patent).

Judge Ware will determine the weight of the examiner's statement regarding the 336. He will also decide if he believes there is enough evidence to incorporate the "right justified" term into the 749 patent. I am hopeful we will win it all, but I won't be surprised by the 749, and neither should you. The T3 argue there is precedent to incorporate limitations from "sister" patents that are deemed similiar enough for "common sense" to be used.

Posted from desktop and I don't necessarily write my posts to recite historical information. Anyone who knows what I am talking about knows. Too lazy to write a detailed post over the phone, or, for that matter, on a desktop to restate the same information over and over again.