Without being able to read the ML2 and what they were asking for. If the respondents are happy with the claim limitation they have in the Markman hearing would it be best not hear written description about how you still infringe even with your limitation. Otteson said at the shareholder meeting even with the current claim constructions they still infringe. I don't know if this a legal manuever or a capitulation on the that particular defense. We shall soon see.

GL

In regard to the question of whether there still is a need for both the written description requirement and the claim requirement, while the written description provides support (both enablement and possession) for the claims, the claims define the invention and play a critical role in determining infringement. A patent must describe the exact scope of the invention to give the applicant all that he or she is entitled and to notify the public of what is still open to future inventors. These objectives are served by both the specification, which describes the invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the invention; and, the patent claims, which define the scope of the patent grant and function to forbid not only exact copies of the invention, but products that go to the heart of the invention yet avoid the literal language of the claims by making a trivial change.98