NOTE: this is my understanding in my own words, from a summary of comments at the Sept 1 SHM, then a follow up visit Dec 13 with Fred 1 on 1. By then I knew the interview had taken place. My goal was to revisit the SHM comments, ask questions, then in my own mind make sense of the reexam process. Nothing said is a quote from Fred.

My visit with Fred to re-discuss what he and others said at the SHM, was to better understand the reexam process. My take away was: the goal is to make minimal changes to the claims, in an effort to not weaken the original wording of the patent, as it can effect which products remain as infringers. In the negotiations that takes place with "final rejections" and then the interview(s), compromises in the claim wording may be required in order to revalidate the patent, which can weakin it in some areas and even strengthen it in others. The final outcome may eliminate some of the infringers product line or how far back in time we can go, claiming where infringement began.