Reread More's arguments in response to the office action again this evening. A masterpiece. But I note this time around that none of the arguments addresses the right alignment issue. If you take the reexam as dealing only with claim 29 and the prior art references noted in the office action, then the right alignment doesn't enter into the reexam picture. There are references to claim constructions used by the court, but I did not see anything referring to the right alignment issue. Unless I totally missed it in the arguments, I'm back to thinking the USPTO can approve claim 29 based on TPL's arguments w/o waiting for the appellate court to decide on that sub-issue. As always IMHO Opty