Here is the 749 footnote on Page 11 of the Claim Construction ruling. This shouldn't be a surprise.

23 The Court notes that in a summary of an in-person interview with the examiner issued on October 25, 1994, the examiner noted with respect to Claim 1: “operand width is variable and right adjusted.” (See Chen Decl., Ex. 19, Examiner Interview Summary Record, Docket Item No. 316-20.) The statement appears to have been made in an attempt to distinguish prior art known as “Boufarah,” and the Court finds that it may potentially impose a limitation on the type of operands that are to be used and the positioning of the operands in the instruction register. The Court finds that a full understanding of the meaning of this statement and the events that gave rise to it might be relevant to the present analysis. Thus, the Court finds that it would benefit from further briefing as to this issue, as discussed below.