Now that I read the letter a couple of times, I am less concerned about it and actually think it was most wise to put it in the record.

IMHO it clarifies that, as far as the patent owner is concerned, it is the wording of the claim in the context of the entire patent that provides the meaning of the claim - not necessarily just what the examiner says or any illustrative example.

I can see where Barco, or another litigant, might point to what examiner said and the example used as defining the limits of claim 29. So, the clarification in the record is a must.

Opty