The re-exam does not involve the Ram vs. No-Ram issue. The examiner did not list this as an issue against prior art. DM is not involved in the re-exam process. E-Digital hired a separate law firm that is being paid an hourly rate. No DM attorney attended the USPTO interview, nor was any DM attorney listed in the rejection response.
E-Digital has not requested a change in any of the rejected claims. If the examiner is convinced of E-Digitals arguments, the claims will stand as is.
A patent that has survived the re-exam process should obtain additional strength in future infringement lawsuits, as many posters have pointed out.
