"Turning some basic principles of flash memory upside down?"
Thing is, I get the problems Norris and company had in getting their ideas patented in avoiding prior art issues.
I get the judge in Colorado, however, she, IMVHO, ruled incomplete on that which she ruled on.
There are two issues in the phrase ruled on for item B....the judge ruled on one issue only....e.Digitals claims construction considered both issues.....the defendants claims construction considered one issue only.
“a flash memory module which operates as sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals and is capable of retaining recorded digital information for storage in nonvolatile form”
I get why the defendants considered their claims construction for the one issue, however it was for one issue only.
The digital reference in that phrase got no consideration from the judge at all....and that I do not understand.
Now comes.... A
A. “flash memory” (Claims 1, 2 and 19 of the ‘774 Patent and Claim 5 of the ‘737 Patent)
e.Digital’s Proposed Construction: "block erasable non-volatile memory"
Defendants’ Proposed Construction: "block erasable non-volatile memory that is the main memory of the system "
A .....takes into account part of the phrase not ruled on...regarding "recorded digital information"
Thing is.... "block erasable non-volatile memory" considered for both parts of that phrase, without the re-exam, are storage issues only and are not main memory issues.
block erasable non-volatile memory, can not, or ever will be...an over-write main memory(RAM).
e.Digital !!!!!...EMULATES...!!!!!! the flash as a main memory, though the process is most definitely a storage based issue, it is !!!!!! not, not, not !!!!! a main memory, or function in anyway in the capacity of an over-write memory(RAM).
The problem for e.Digital, ....finding the words to emphasize what it does different in breaking away from prior art word meanings....and not necessarily prior art teachings.
doni
