You are on right track in your analysis of what the Judge has to do; that is she has to "Construe" the 6 claims that were not "Tried"...

You are getting confused in the legal jargon used by parties in their closing comments at the MH...

1) When the Judge asked the parties if they agreed the 2 claims tried were "DISPOSITIVE", to the case, they agreed...

2) Then she asked what about the 6 claims that were not tried at MH?...

a) DM took the high road and using legal jargon proposed the Judge should follow the LAW as enunciated in the PHILLIPS CASE , a 10th Appellate District Decision that covered the questions of claim construction by trial Judges, such as following the "Plain and ordinay meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art", and the use of "Intrinsic" or "Extrinsic" evidence...

b) Defense took the stand that if the 2 claims were ruled for them, then the judge could forget about the 6 remaining claim and the case would end. On the other hand if the 2 claims were decided for EDIG, then they wanted all the other claims "Construed" and ruled on...

In my opinion this Judge is Keenly aware of the PHILLIPS CASE and its mandates. She will take all the time she needs to craft a decision that will pass by the Scrutiny of the 10th Appellate District Court. And the longer it takes the more certain I become that the 2 Claims "Tried" are already decided for EDIG. For, as defense counsel aptly observed, if the 2 tried c laims were ruled against EDIG, this case would have been over long time ago, and we would not be having this conversation...

GLTA...

Gil...