Thanks for this, Doni.

Also, the order states, Page 4, footnote, that the device can work in a purely analog fashion referencing claim 19 of the patent for support. However, claim 19 states: "recording medium which is capable of retaining recorded digital information for storage". Namely, "DIGITAL". Clearly, the court got this interpretation wrong.

I think this "error" is important as the order is focused in distinguishing "partially processed sound" from "fully processed sound".

Also, on Page 6, the order writes:

"He [Norris] indicated that, by amending Claim 1 to state that "the invention [includes] flash memory as the sole memory to store the received processed sound electrical signal," it would overcome "any prior art teaching which uses flash memory without another memory system such as RAM."

So, if I read this right, Norris wrote that his invention overcomes prior art having flash memory without RAM!

On page 10, the order makes a very odd argument about references to the word "processing" or "processed" in the patent, noting the "absence" of the word processed to support the courts argument. This is really a weak argument. Clearly, flash memory stores the "fully processed sound." The order is also claiming that the flash memory can "store" the analog data. How does it do that?! I am wrong to believe that flash memory can only store digital data?

-dy2147