The defendants are going to be trapped between two separate issues....where e.Digital was initially looking to have those conditions condensed on the one patent for both issues through its claim construction.

My analysis of what e.Digital was initially after :

2. 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 (an Analog issue requiring no RAM, or RAM(DA input to memory), that contends, it's involved in the removable issue), and (2){e.Digital original} sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals (an Analog issue requiring NO RAM, or RAM(DA input to memory) is capable of retaining for storage digital (digital contention requiring RAM ) information without the need for ongoing power support”

"sole memory" means,,,, that the memory is utilized for both principles.

The court ruled, with what I consider, arguable conditions needing some form of modification that represents a better consideration for the digital aspects of the patent.

"as applicable" is in consideration of each condition, however, it needs more

What e.Digital is saying, ok, they more recognize one issue.....now rule on the memory issue relating to 737 in giving more reorganization to the other.

The choice....

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 "

doni