The plaintiffs propose “all of the storage elements on the substrate and the control circuitry configured to access the storage elements.” The defendants claim that this term is indefinite, but if construction is possible, they propose “an information storing array that does not include registers,

Accordingly, the Court construes “memory” to mean “storage elements other than column latches.”

Too close to call

The plaintiffs propose “the total surface of the supporting material upon or within which is formed an interconnected array of circuit elements.” The defendants propose “area enclosed by the outermost edges of the substrate

The Court construes the term to mean “the total top surface area of the substrate.”

The plaintiffs contend that no construction is necessary. Alternatively, if a construction is needed, then the plaintiffs propose “channels through which data can be transferred between two separate processing units.”

The Court construes the term to mean “channels through which data is allowed to be transferred between two separate processing units

Plaintiffs again

The Court construes “instruction groups” to mean “sets of from 1 to a maximum number of sequential instructions, each set being provided to the instruction register as a unit and having a boundary, and in which any operand that is present must be right justified.”

No idea.  Splitting hairs.  Defendents got the right justified. 

HELP!  Looks like Court has sided with TPL in a significant number of interpretations.  But what do I know.