the original patent phrase

“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”

Courts construction around:

“a flash memory module which operates as sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals"

1. The court did not consider the the constructions of plaintiff or defendant...

2. For the construction of the original phrase, it did not consider the balance of the phrase ....digital conditions.....where the defendant counter part to that being ...no RAM issues.

3. For the consideration of the phrase it focused on.... it considered, “received processed sound electrical signals” to be only connected to the up front analog conditions, this is good for e.Digital. Where for the plaintiff and defendants, they focused that construction phrase consideration differently...towards the memory entity.

4. That phrase was important to the defendants...to be pointed to the memory in conjunction with its no RAM needed.

5. The plaintiff and defendants basically had straight out standoff opposite considerations regarding memory as they relate to pointing... “received processed sound electrical signals” @ the memory, where it could be considered a memory..... or the up front analog issues.

With regard to “received processed sound electrical signals” and memory implication.. The court balanced that with (as applicable)...and based that on the device, not the memory as the plaintiff and the defendants did.

Issues important to defendants were half buried, where “received processed sound electrical signals” are not pointed to the memory but the up front issues.... and the no RAM issue becomes a choice depending on what codec is used.

That's how I see it.

I'd like some one here comment as to why things are dispositve to e.Digital needing an appeal?

doni