<the Judge will not simply say, "The MMP has now been re-validated by the PTO on many occasions. Therefore, infringement must have occurred". >

Where do you get this stuff from? Nowhere did I say anything like that or even hint at it.

But you at least answered my question.

<the Judge will not consider what the PTO has "already done" >

And that flatly contradicts what the plaintiffs are asking the judge to do. Disavowels that the USPTO didn't act on, but want the judge to see and enforce. By doing so, the judge would be considering what the USPTO has done. Just not agreeing to what they did by ingnoring it. You are saying that he can only consider that the patent owner may have made a disavowel of scope? The fact that the USPTO didn't see it the same way, is totally irrelevant to judge Ware, in your opinion?

I can't believe any judge would be that narrow minded. This is my last post on the subject, and I actually mean it.

Opty