Here is the RELEVANT PART OF THE quotes from PAGE 10 of your MH Report...They read as follows:...

Judge pointed out that the entire day was spent on two of the eight claim construction terms (i.e., “flash memory” and “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”). She asked if the parties still wanted her to rule on the other six claim construction terms.

Here the Judge is telling the parties: [We spent the whole day adducing evidence relation to two (2) of the 8 Claims before the Court. Do you guys want me to rule on the other 6 claims?].

This caught everyone off guard. Jameson conferred with Yungwirth and Hanlon-Leh and then said the Plaintiff would be OK with these terms being construed based on their plain and ordinary meaning. Unless, he noted, that the defense wants them ruled on. In that case, Jameson said our submitted definitions will stand.

Jameson after quickly conference with the other 3 lawyers on the table told the Judge, [Plaintiff is OK with your Honor construing the remaining six (6) claims based on their plain and ordinary meaning. Unless defendants want them construed,in which case our submitted definitions stand.

So far Jameson has told the Court (1) If you remember Phillips case and Rule for plaintiff on the first 2 (two claims), then you can use the Plain and Ordinary Meaning of the words in the next 6 claims and Dispose of the case before you. (2) Unless defense wants a Ruling on 6 claims, in which case our written definitions stand.

When they reconvened, Cohen spoke and said that (1) unless the she ruled for the defendants on the two construction claims mentioned (above) which would basically end this case, then the defense would want all claims ruled on. The judge said something like, “OK, if these two claims are ruled as dispositive to the case, I won’t rule on the other claims.” I didn’t like that but there was no objection by the plaintiff. Not sure about this.

In the above dialogue with the Court both parties agreed that the two (2) claims litigate on 1/28/2011 were pretty much DISPOSTIVE TO THE CASE before the Judge. Meaning whoever won those two claims, the other Party had to pretty much pack up and hit the road. The only thing left was for the judge to say something about the other 6 claims which wereNOT DOSPOSITIVE OF THE CASE BEOFORE THE JUDGE.

Finally, here the legal dictionary defintion of the words "Dispostive" to the case...

There is nothing there implying I am ging to rule against EDIG. That is why Jameson did not object.

GLTA...

Gil...