rebuttal.I am wondering if there is any crediance to what

they are saying or if this is typical sparing that goes

on in a case such as this.Any experts please chime in.

Sorry I could not include the whole rebuttal but I had to

manually type the following:

``The request is based on two false premises. The first-

That the differences between a toshiba product family

are irrelevant to infringement such that one chip may be

deemed ``representative`` of the whole - is easily debunked

with information on Toshiba`s website. The second- that

plantiff always intended to acccuse families but

``erroneously`` neglected to do so-is belied by their original PICS and the correspondence preceding them.

The ``Corrected Disclosure of Asserted claims and Preliminary

Infringement Contentions`` submitted with plantiff motion is their fifth effort (in six weeks) to inform defendants of the scope of this case. These vacillations reflect a cavalier and lacadaisical approach to compliance with this

Court`s rules. They are inconsistent with plaintiff`s

claim to have excercised the sort of diligence that is prerequisite to the relief they seek.``

Thanks in advance

P.S. Seems there may be a manpower (Or lawyerpower) issue

at play here.Apparently the scope of infringement is

so wide that it takes an enormous amount of time just

to catelog it. If so, the rocket docket may not be the place

to be.And multiple defendants may play into this issue also.

GLTAL