According to the rules, you should not be allowed to continually repeat the same messages like you are doing. I have put your motives into question long ago.

In any case,

I disagree with your "virtually always."

but in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical, such surrender shall not affect any action then pending nor abate any cause of action then existing, and the reissued patent, to the extent that its claims are substantially identical with the original patent, shall constitute a continuation thereof and have effect continuously from the date of the original patent.

There is a reason why the above says "substantially identical" as opposed to "identical" or "virtually identical."

Additionally, we are not accusing infringement of just one claim of a single patent. If that were the case, then your argument might have some validity. We are accusing infringment of multiple claims of multiple patents.

Your efforts might be more rewarding if you consider the importance of each of these patents to the functioning of the products, and look at past jury awards for infringement of just a single critical patent.

Opty