Gil...

FWIW, I note that the USPTO is following the court issues.

IMO, though most do not see it my way, the court is right there with its ruling. IMO, the field of use issues are considered by the court in item 2 of its ruling.

As ambiguous as the patent is written.....IMO, the court is on top of it. In its ruling it gave meaning to the ambiguity for a portion of the published phrase covering the field of use issues.

Part 1 is understandable....though I do not agree with it.....and for part 2 it fired back with the same ambiguity the patent is written in.....it's kind of like "if that's how you want it? ...lol

Now the examiner is trying to figure out the ambiguities of each.....perhaps Allen MacDonald, Michelle Doerrler, Susan Wieland, or Susan McFadden could give him a hand.....

They eventually all got it down...and gave two US patents detailing it.....where it also past the test of international publication.

doni