I read the complete response and found it compelling, even though I admit to being "tech ignorant". It was written in simple, straight forward enough terms that I came away feeling like I actually understood the arguments. It appears we attack on several fronts on each issue. I slept well last night....

One thing that stands out was this statement:

Notably, though, to qualify as disclaimer, these statements must be “clear and unmistakable” as the Federal Circuit has “consistently rejected prosecution statements too vague or ambiguous to qualify as a disavowal of claim scope.”

Based on my reading and all the controversy described, one thing that became "clear and unmistakeable" was that Grewal's conclusions are based on ANYTHING BUT "clear and unmistakeable" info. So IMO (I know, worthless) the Recommendation by Grewal does not pass the basic smell test.

I strongly suggest that everyone read our response (try again Paul!). The only difficulty is the formatting. If you can get past that, you may be surprised at your comprehension of the content.

But keep in mind that we are not looking at the complete package, so we have to "believe" the references and such. Still, there is no reason to think they aren't "real".

Bottom line, I think we've got a real good shot. I've bet my money on it!

FWIW,

SGE