If by amending the ICs, you are suggesting that, as an example, we could now change our IC from use of DDP1101 chip (or whatever the nomenclature was) to something different, I think you are totally wrong.

The problem was not in what we claimed to be infringing. The problem lay in the way we presented the IC. How we connected the dots - By using some other chip in the same chip family. The court did not think that was sufficiently specific.

IMO, no IC was changed, or allowed to be changed. Only clarified by some other more direct means. We still claimed that DDP 1101 infringes this that or the other claims.

Opty