"hey, the new suits are for a different claim of 108 than the claim of 108 on appeal...!!
Not exactly...if you understand what claim term item (b)cache is of claim 1.
The 774 issue deals with ambiguity with regard to RAM. It was the CO defendants consideration that RAM is not used in the 774 patent.With that, the judge ruled, depending on how you interpret the judges ruling, that RAM is not used in the 774 patent. The CO judges ruling is more ambiguous than the 774 patent reads and you can interpret the judges ruling that RAM is used if you consider all the components conditioned and what they require. There are two issues conditioned in the judges ruling...analog and digital stoarge.
In any event, keep in mind that the re-exam was not initiated because of the CO judges ruling. The added highlighting in the re-exam that RAM is a requirement was part of rectifying the judges ambiguity as well as the patents ambiguity.
With that, the 108 was introduced in opposition to the motion for CE by the current defendants.... as part of supporting the RAM issue of 774. 108 spells out the RAM issue and is a patent, for all intent and purpose, reads similar to the 774.
Now 108 is locked into the CE and is part of the appeal of 774, as well as grounds for the appeal as it should have not been included in the CE.
For the 108 patent, item (b)cache of claim 1...is a RAM issue. With that, as I see things, the judges CE ruling in favor of the defendants is holding hostage the RAM issue for 774, and if it is upheld by the appeals court we have problems right down the line regarding the RAM issue...even though it is spelled out in 108.
108 is a test for 445 which also spells out the RAM(cache) issue.
doni
