I've numbered the passages and try to apply logic to the situation below.
(From the MH Ruling)
ISSUE PRESENTED
The dispute between the parties here is a relatively straightforward one.(1)
The Plaintiff
contends that the “sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals” in Claim 1
refers to the use of flash memory as the sole means of storing the data that results from the
completion of the various processing stages discussed above, but that the device may use RAM
as memory to hold data while it processes the sound signals into digital data ready for storage.(2)
In contrast, the Defendants contend that the language in dispute should be read to require that flash memory be the sole writeable memory in the device, and that no RAM may be used at any
point in the device’s operation.(3)
Although the parties have focused their attention on the phrase “sole memory” in the
disputed language, it appears to the Court that the true dispute between the parties is over the
phrase “received processed sound.” (4)
The Plaintiff’s apparent construction of this phrase is that it
refers only to “fully processed sound” data, while the Defendants’ construction of the phrase is
that it refers to “partially processed sound” data, as well as the finished product.
(1) If it was so straight forward why not rule as such.
(2) Look at the diagram in the patent where it is labeled RAM. Also
(3) Read the testimony of the Defendant's expert witness admit to it needing RAM.
(4) Judge K's opinion "Even though I'm not an expert in the field of electronic engineering, and I have listened to both parties expert testimony, I'm going to change what both parties are actually fighting about and insert mine. (Did she stay at the Holiday Inn during the Markman Hearing?)
WHAT THE FALK!!!!
