sman, I just read your post where you show that someone commented:

"Although we do not hold that reexamination history cannot ever create a new issue that would preclude the application of collateral estoppel, such a scenario does not exist here because the reexamination history in no way modifies, clarifies, or even informs the construction of the sole memory limitation."

There is too much backward phrasing in there for me, but as I read it apparently the re-exam fell short in clarifying the claim language regarding sole memory... so maybe that answers my earlier question.

I wonder now if Handal had figured out that '774 was unlikely to overcome CE despite the re-exam, and was therefore willing to settle regarding '774 while leaving '737 open?

- Sinkman