"The ‘774 patent is directed to a “record/playback device for use with a removable,
interchangeable, flash memory recording medium which enables extended recording comparable with tape cassette dictating equipment.”

Yes, that is what it is....with no specific device designation...however, one needs to demonstrate some form of working device.

===========================

Re:examiners consideration to change memory designation in order to approve patent.

that “Applicant will amend claims to include limitation that will expressly state that the flash memory module is the sole memory to store the received processed sound electrical signal.”

Will a judge understand the issues of preprocessed signals for both AD and DA, along with compression issues?

I would hope so.

==============================

system. Although the Ball reference teaches the use of
flash memory as a part of a telephone answering system, the
Microsoft Dictionary states that flash memory cannot be used as
main memory. Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 297 Filed 06/14/10 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 44

Wow this is going to get real interesting.....amazing

I'm sure that for the number of attorneys involved for the defendants, they have read all of e.Digitals patents and understand them thoroughly.

They are arguing the issues we all have discussed over the years. Main memory vs. storage memory being one of them. For the 774 issues, they want the plaintiff to admit to a process where the flash actually replaces the RAM entirely....where it's just not the situation. If they convince the court of this....they will then venture the fact that none of the devices in question infringe....because they implement Ram resources.

After all this time it's interesting to see things unfold as they are.

doni