"Does anyone else feel 90 days to rule on just 2 claims is unlikely?"

I do, especially for the details the defendants want to tag to their claims construction considerations.

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

A. “flash memory” (Claims 1, 2 and 19 of the ‘774 Patent and Claim 5 of the ‘737 Patent)

e.Digital’s Proposed Construction: "block erasable non-volatile memory"

Defendants’ Proposed Construction: "block erasable non-volatile memory that is the main memory of the system "

................

The defendants considreation of "main memory" must/should match that of what the inventor considered....that being a storage element as sole memory....and not a RAM component. This does not seem a hard determination of what the inventor considered.

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

B. “a flash memory module which operates as sole memory of the received

...........

edig:...“a removable, interchangeable flash memory storage device"

defendants:...“a removable, interchangeable flash memory recording medium”

judge to consider...sort the difference between storage and recording....storage would indicate any type data....recording indicates a specific data....is it a storage element or a specific element?....See claim A definition used for main(sole) memory for the invention....storage is unspecific as to the type data stored. The definition of recording needs to be justified.

............

edig:..."that receives for storage the processed sound electrical signals"

defendants:...."sole memoryof the received processed sound electrical signals:"

judge to consider ... defendants do not consider "sole memory" as storage, yet they want to use e.Digital verbiage"sole" where they should be using "main"? Again...for answer see claim A, definition of main(sole) memory to be considered....

............

edig:..."sole memoryof the received processed sound electrical signals: ”

defendant:...“the only memory of the received processed sound electrical signals, "

judge to consider...sole memory vs the only memory.... IMO...again, it comes back to claim A....the definition that will be decided of main(sole) memory. with that....a consideration of "the only" implies a definition of main memory as the defendants consider...the flash as RAM component.

For the above issues...IMO...come down to the definition of Claim A. as I see it, that determination would not take 90 days.

................

edig:..."is capable of retaining for storage digital information without the need for ongoing power support”

defendants:..."without another memory system such as RAM”

a phrase implemented to support the definition of main(sole) memory that the defendants consider, and how the flash is to be recognized.....the flash as RAM component.

It all comes down to claim A and a determination of "main(or sole) memory"....Will she consider as the inventor considered...storage, or as the defendants do utilizing the MSFT dictionary....RAM?

IMO...A ....determines all

FWIW

doni

processed sound electrical signals and is capable of retaining recorded digital

information for storage in nonvolatile form” (Claims 1 and 19 of the ‘774

Patent)

e.Digital’s Proposed Construction: “a removable, interchangeable flash memory storage device that (1) is the only removable memory storage device that receives for storage the processed sound electrical signals, and (2){e.Digital original} sole memoryof the received processed sound electrical signals: is capable of retaining for storage digital information without the need for ongoing power support”

Defendants’ Proposed Constructions: (1) flash memory module: “a removable, interchangeable flash memory recording medium” and (2){e.Digital original} sole memoryof the received processed sound electrical signals: “the only memory of the received processed sound electrical signals, without another memory system such as RAM”

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