We disagree with respect to analog considerations at least so far as ‘774 is concerned. I do not see this as relevant or important but maintain in any case that claim 19 is not at all clear (and probably not even correct).
I do not equate "recording medium" to "analog memory" as you do and there is no other distinction in the patent that explains the intent or ability to store information in analog form, yet there is plenty of language surrounding DSPs and Codecs... which pretty much screams "digital" to anyone with a little technical knowledge.
From ‘774 under: BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION...
Attempts have also been made to apply fixed memory storage to hand-held devices. Commercial success, however, has been frustrated by the same inadequacies that have sustained allegiance to the standard cassette recorder over the years. For example, Information Storage Devices, Inc., has developed a small, voice record/playback device having nonvolatile memory which is stored in an EEPROM in natural analog form. Unfortunately, the analog storage format has only limited memory capacity, resulting in a short operation span of less than several minutes. Furthermore, the device retains the conventional computer format with no removable and interchangeable recording media comparable to the standard cassette. Without this convenient interchangability aspect, the small device operates with the same limitations of a conventional computer system.
Whether or not the judge ruled correctly and whether or not the judge should have been able to take apart the claims terms being argued by the parties and reassembled them at her convenience seems irrelevant now since DM has essentially agreed to be bound by that decision. Why exactly DM agreed and are not even pursuing ‘737 is much more troubling to me at this point. As it stands DM isn’t raising the bar; they (and we) are starting all over.
And stain, I do appreciate your review of the ruling and sharing your opinions with the board. I can see from your comments that you feel the judge greatly erred in this case, but given comments reported by others at the SHM it doesn’t appear that DM is planning to pursue any other course of action beyond bringing the current round to a close and perhaps filing a new round elsewhere.
- Sinkman
