I have made my investment decisions based on what I have read/studied in the patents....

For 774, which I have read many times, and marked up with all kinds of highlight....I decided yesterday to re-read and study thoroughly .....I do not read what the judge reads, to me it's an all digital patent.

looking at foot note 4....

4
There is some basis to believe that the device can also operate on a purely analog basis. Compare Claim 1 (including “analog-to-digital conversion circuitry”) with Claim 19 (containingno reference to such circuitry). It appears that a CODEC is nevertheless necessary in purelyanalog operations to “cod[e] and decod[e] the analog signal.” 5:63; compare 5:65 (“CODEC also performs the analog to digital conversion”) (emphasis added).

Is that some kind of an assumption, because I do not read the patent that way?

I've been reading these published patents for a long time now....where did I go wrong(note to self)?

I've invested off of what I read,what was publicly published by the USPTO, not the issues that are formulating now.

????

I don't know how the rest of you invested, but for me, I put my faith behind the USPTO publishing's, some of the companies anticipations, DM anticipations, and more importantly, what I have studied, and I do not see anything the judge is implying after 130 days or so of deliberation.

In fact..anything to do with what she is considering is considered inefficient by the inventor....so I have no idea why shes considering as she is.

Here is what the inventor considers of what she considers and this is the only issue involving it in the patent:

"Attempts have also been made to apply fixed memory storage to hand-held devices. Commercial success, however, has been frustrated by the same inadequacies that have sustained allegiance to the standard cassette recorder over the years. For example, Information Storage Devices, Inc., has developed a small, voice record/playback device having nonvolatile memory which is stored in an EEPROM in natural analog form. Unfortunately, the analog storage for-mat has only limited memory capacity, resulting in a short operation span of less than several minutes. Furthermore, the device retains the conventional computer format with no removable and interchangeable recording media comparable to the standard cassette. Without this convenient interchan-gability aspect, the small device operates with the same limitations of a conventional computer system."

??

At this point, I have no idea where my disappointments lie.

I do know one thing, I know how to interpret the 774 patent at it's face value....and there's not much more I could have done than that.

I have no idea what happens from here....but I hope it's because of what DM has anticipated and all associated directly with the cause.

Can a judge make an assumptive decision?

GLTA.....for however you have made your decisions regarding this issue.

I'm hanging on like THE worst pit-bull you have ever seen.....It's all about principles for me and how I consider things for the future of all in this country.....understand that or not.

doni

doni