"That pretty much says it all"

Yes, I read that, as I feel many others did. ......that is all you needed to state from the get go. However, you did not do that....you loaded your initial post with a message of uncertainty, where the filing is a non-final.

As for "no it was not specific"(memory issues).... well, the court had a better idea of what is. IMO, the courts ruling is not dead on regarding "sole" but it's better than than the examiners initial considerations.

It will be sorted out and the defendants know it. The defendants understood the patent claim details right from the get go.....They formed their construction accordingly in trying to avoided the "flash memory " details completely.....and the court knew that as well.

What it comes down to in gaining an understanding....for the court and the examiner it's more or less a forced duty without passion .....for the defendants it's in their best interest to understand emphatically what the patent is all about.....and they do.

doni