I don't think this is as clear cut as people want to make this out to be. I read that filing a while back and the Staff was referring to the original infringement contentions submited by Dr. O, not the supplemental contentions that were subsequently denied. I think the Staff is saying if Dr. O addressed Staff's and Respondents' claim construction terms regarding "entire ..." then the Staff would be for denying the MSD submission request. If we get to trial Dr. O will be permitted to give his opinion as to why the accused products infringe based on his supplemental opinion yhat was denied previously. The MSD needs to be denied and it is still obviously not a sure thing or the SP IMO would be higher.