<I think the issue is whether we can appeal the Markman ruling on the right justified now that the language does not indicate that there is a right justified limitation and is recertified>

It does more than just "not indicate that there is a right justified limitation." The clarifying language that was added to claim 29 clearly allows left or right justification, imo. My belief is that because claim 29 reads differently than before, it might elicit a different construction from the courts today. Ward's claim construction can be viewed as not being inconsistant with the prosecution history and wording of the claim at that time. That would not be the case today. While inconsistancies between the courts and the USPTO can exist, one would think the courts try to avoid such if they can.

All IMO, GLTA

Opty