“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.” 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.”
HUH????WTF is this interpretation – where did the “Court” get this crap from?This is NOT what this Judge quoted above as taken from the Patent Office and NOT what the PARTIES TO THIS CASE WERE ARGUING. IT IS THE JUDEGE’S SMARMY WAY OF ATEMPTING TO SHIFT THE ARGUMENTS AND THEN IMPOSE HER OWN THOUGHTS ON THIS TECHNOLOGY…
However, the court imposed
1]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.
lol
doni
