I'll give one attempt to try to finalize this discussion.

At no time, to my knowledge, did TPL state that they were opposed to that language being there. They just left out that extra language in their desired construction because it added nothing - that language (as I stated last night) is PRECISELY what is stipulated in the patent. No need to point out the extremely obvious.

Now I suppose the counter-argument is why did the Judge include that language in his ruling? I strongly suspect it was to make it explicitly clear that the word "uncontrolable" is absent.

One shot. Did I hit the target?

SGE