Hi Tom (Theaudiotweak),
As you are no doubt aware, the claims section of a patent defines in very precise terms exactly what the invention or inventions is or are for which the patent holder is granted exclusive rights. A patent attorney will attempt to word those claims as broadly as possible, to make the protections provided by the patent as broad as possible, but without wording them so broadly that a claim encompasses an invention previously made by someone else, which might invalidate the patent or cause it to not be granted in the first place.
In this case, every one of the 10 claims, either directly or by reference to one of the other claims, clearly and specifically refers to applying an acoustic paint to a wall, the paint having been formulated in one of several different specifically defined ways, for the purpose of improving the acoustics of the room.
As a licensed patent attorney, I can tell you that if another manufacturer were to market fuses that have been treated with a paint formulated identically to any of the paint formulations defined in the patent, and Mr. Denney sought to bring an infringement suit on the basis of that patent, he would not get to square one with his suit.
Best regards,
-- Al