Here are the 8 construction claims in dispute between the parties and what the Markman hearing is all about:

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 "

They want to change the normal meaning of what block erasable non-volatile memory is, to something that it is not and use a definition of RAM for the flash.

-------------------------------------

B. “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” (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”

They want it to appear that e.Digital does not implement a RAM resource of any kind when it comes to the non-volatile memory usage, so that they can come back with.. "we utilize a RAM process, with that, we are not infringing e.Digital patents". e.Digital greatly minimizes a RAM resource that reflects whatever the read / write block size (not to be confused with erase block) considerations are of the non-volatile memory. While at the same time are trying to pigeon hole to "the only" memory that might be on a device, e.Digital wants to open it to more than the removable ......they want to close it.

-------------------------------------

C. “interchangeable” (Claims 1 and 19 of ‘774 Patent)

e.Digital’s Proposed Construction: “capable of ready transfer to another device” memory type or platform not important...open platform.

Defendants’ Proposed Construction: “readily insertable in other compatible devices” memory type proprietary, device type proprietary...closed system

-------------------------------------

D. “memory control circuitry” (Claims 1 and 19 of ‘774 Patent)

e.Digital’s Proposed Construction:“electronic circuitry for processing an audio signal for storage as a file on memory”..... includes RAM resource for processing

Defendants’ Proposed Construction:“circuitry that directs the storage and retrieval of information to and from the flash memory”....non processing considerations....as they want it to appear its happening within the non-volatile

-------------------------------------

E. “switch means” (Claims 1, 18 and 19 of ‘774 Patent)

e.Digital’s Proposed Construction: “control device that allows the user to select one of two or more possible states for one or more functional operations”

Defendants’ Proposed Construction:Defendants contend “switch means … for selecting the desired functional operations to be performed” is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.

Function: selecting the desired functional operations to be performed Structure: a single, manually operated rocker pad 27 centrally mounted upon a pivot support such that the rocker-pad is pivotable on respective right-angle directions responsive to manipulation of the user’s thumb, and a separate record control button 37 that is isolated from the rocker-pad, and equivalents

-------------------------------------

F. “record/playback device” (Claims 1 and 19 of ‘774 Patent)

e.Digital’s Proposed Construction:e.Digital contends that this phrase does not need to be construed and that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

Defendants’ Proposed Construction:“a dictation device that enables extended duration recording and playback of audio”

-------------------------------------

G. “write protect circuitry” (Claim 3 of ‘774 Patent)

e.Digital’s Proposed Construction:“circuitry for protecting memory from being modified”

Defendants’ Proposed Construction:Defendants contend that the broader phrase “write protect circuitry operable independent of the record/playback device” should be construed as: “circuitry for preventing flash memory from being modified, erased, or deleted, which circuitry operates independent of the record/playback device”

-------------------------------------

H. “activating a memory integrity test” (Claim 5 of ‘737 Patent)

e.Digital’s Proposed Construction:“activating a test to verify whether memory is defective”

Defendants’ Proposed Construction:“starting a test, performed by the recording device, of all memory segments in the flash memory to determine whether one or more segments of the flash memory is defective”

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

What DM wants, is the court to rule on Claim term A..as it relats to 737...as that, that was ruled on, is not disposative to H.

It comes down to the Meaning of Flash memory and getting a ruling on Claim term A...

IMO, DM could argue that which it does not agree with for that which is ruled....however, this is a much simpler move, leveraging claim term H.

They are getting down to the real dispositive consideration... IMO, this is the appeal able issue if the court rules for flash that which it is not.

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

e.Digital will be adding further elaboration on it's construction...

doni