SMan's post, from which the following is excerpted, is a clear discussion of what happened with the Claim 5 rewrite. The point of the amendment was to clarify the original meaning of the claim, not to change the meaning. This is not a substantive change.
Patent owner amends claim 5 to explicitly state in the body of claim 5 what patent owner believes already to be the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the preamble claim 5 , which is that the test recited in claim 5 to a media test.
This amendment is consistent with the patent owner interpretation of claim before and after amendment.
