<It appear to me it only applies to BARCO and could be used again in a future infringement case based on a new deposition with CM. However, parts of the courts decision, indicate BARCO was way off base.>

Well if there are experts to interpet the following, have at it.

<The ShBoom microprocessor is only one example of one of the claimed inventions. It is not evident that Moore was not in possession of the claimed subject matter simply because information that would enable a person skilled in the art to produce the ShBoom microprocessor is missing from the ’749 and ’890 patents. >

Note the underlined. The point is that specific details on how to make Shaboom or any other device need not be inculded in the patent in order to practice the patent. I believe that is what is being said, but defer to any experts.

Opty