That is pretty much the way I see it as well with respect to instruction groups. We disagree on the importance of claim 29. What exactly, of any significance, is in claim 29 that is not claimed in 1 to 28? I still think infringement of claim 29 is a throw away claim that is being used to find out more about which 1 to 28 claims are being infringed on before going after ARM, other ARM licensees and others. IMHO Opty

A question however is whether, at this point in the game,is there any possibility of refining the infringement claim to any of the 1 to 28 claims. I assume not, but just wondering why the wording of the infringement claim was "at least claim 29" as opposed to 'claim 29.' Anyone? Opty