Yes. These statements can sometimes be of great value in litigation, when certain aspects of the patent are at issue. For example, claim construction can be affected. When an Applicant chooses to say, for example, that a single described embodiment is "the embodiment," there may be an implication that the claims may then be construed based on that embodiment. An Applicant may be able to overcome this implication, but it will undoubtedly be expensive. This expense can be reduced or avoided with the types of statements you mention. Also, one simply does not know how laypersons like must judges and juries will respond to such arguments.

By the way, I would not call such statements disclaimers, since disclaimers disavow subject matter. The statements you describe, in contrast, are attempts to claim undisclosed subject matter. This is am important distinction because patent practitioners should always look for ways to expand the reach of their applications, and the statements you describe are one way to try to do just that.

Another way to look at the issue as from a cost/benefit analysis. The expense of such form paragraphs/statements is quite low, while the potential benefits might be great. This is all part of looking at an application from a present, prosecution perspective and a future, litigation perspective. And, all one needs to do is to find a solid form paragraph and recycle it.

On a related point, taking care to craft a uniformly non-limiting disclosure is part of the value a patent practitioner provides. Considerations such as making sure that all examples are expressly described as non-limiting, that lists are non-limiting (open), and that the embodiments described are mere examples can only add value to the resulting patent.

I hope that this helps.
The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis, PC
A DC Patent Firm