Adding to my prior post, let us review the proposed construction from e.Digital and the defendents:
e.Digital’s Proposed Construction:“a removable, interchangeable flash memory storage device that (1) is the only removable memory storage device that receives for storage the processed sound electrical signals, and (2) is capable of retaining for storage digital information without the need for ongoing power support”
Defendants’ Proposed Constructions:(1) flash memory module: “a removable, interchangeable flash memory recording medium” and (2) sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals: “the only memory of the received processed sound electrical signals, without another memory system such as RAM”
From the court:
"Accordingly, the Court concludes that the proper construction of the phrase “a flash memory module which operates as sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals” is best addressed in two parts. The phrase “received processed sound electrical signals” refers to the electrical signals that have been generated by the microphone and passed through the amplifier and gain control circuits, but have yet to be converted by the CODEC. The remainder of the disputed language requires that the device use only flash memory, not RAM or any other memory system, while engaging the CODEC, DSP (as applicable), and memory control functions, as well as storing the fully-manipulated data."
My comments:
The court said: "The phrase “received processed sound electrical signals” refers to the electrical signals that have been generated by the microphone and passed through the amplifier and gain control circuits, but have yet to be converted by the CODEC."
Can the flash memory record analog signals, ie, not digital? This is a requirement based on the court's interpretation. Is their any support for this court argument from the patent? I do not think so.
e.digital is clearly making the case that the flash memory is the sole memory, or "only removable memory storage device". The court has not addressed this aspect of the claim. In fact, I think the court missed this critical element of the argument, and hence has not commented on what memory is available to store the data (digital), if more than one memory element can store such data (with and without power), and which memory is removable. In my opinion, the court has overreached to limit the claims by extending the claim interpretation of the definition of the "processed sound".
As doni and I have commented, the court's order is contingent on flash memory recording analog data. I think DM will easily refute this critical argument from the court.
Moreover, the court completely missed the fact that adding the language "sole memory" for "storage" simply could mean that no other memory element, that is removable or otherwise, is used to permanently store the digital data without the need for power. For example, there is no hard drive in the device in addition to the flash memory.
The court has really done a disservice to this case, and I am confident that the court order will need to be ammended.
-dy2147
