OK, I got some feedback from an ex-Intel contact. I am not going to cut and paste what he wrote, rather I am just going to summarize as he can be all over the place when explaining things, which is sometimes the case for really smart people.  

In summary, his interpretation of the ruling was that he thought we won most of the claims, but as some have expressed, you can win all but one, and it could be the one you lost that bites ya. In his opinion, the “584 is the biggie and possibly our biggest fight. He specifically addresses claim 3c. He feels that it lays the terminology down very precise about how operations are grouped in the register.  Since the “584 is about grouping operations, how this claim is going to be interpreted in front of a jury could be a deal breaker.  For PTSC, the claim helps because it says any grouping of instructions/operations (even if it is 1 operation) is an “instruction group”, vital to their patent.  However, he feels that the “right justified” part, which he is not 100% sure of what this means, could help ARM since they might claim something as stupid as “It’s left justified”.

As far as what claim possibly contains the “Highly Technical” term that requires more defining, based on his analysis, I would say it is 1d. which is related to “Command Input Control Signal”. Basically he agrees with what Ease has been stating. Ease 1 – Kidd 0

He will not give his opinion on whether or not he feels we won/lost as he has not been following Patriot as closely as we have nor is he in vested in Patriot. Getting time from this guy is extremely difficult, so please don’t expect me to go back to him with more questions. Good luck to all of us. GLTAL