Agreed. It looks like TPL were looking to broaden the scope of infringement as a ploy to continually ask for the world as a good litigator should. It is abundantly clear in the Staff's recommendation that they performed their due diligence when they continually referrence tpl's very own terms argued in past cases and the very same verbiage defined by the judges. Plus, the Staff admits to questioning whether or not there is actually a real dispute in 3 or 4 claim terms between both parties. Conclusion for me is TPL is trying to argue for the world and will settle with what has already been decided by Ward, Ware and Grewal.