Thanks for the clarification. I'm no attorney (I'll leave that to Minister), and I agree that DM isn't representing us in the current re-exam. But they have to be involved in determining the overall strategy for fitting the the re-exam into the litigation process, and thus in the tactics employed in the re-exam.

My belief that the RAM/Main Memory issue was being considered derived from the amount of space spent discussing and clarifying that issue in the 4 part document that SMAN posted. I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that the rexam would not limit itself exclusively to prior art and leave the patent still ambiguous and subject to further misinterpretation, but would attempt to make it clear in all respects; that this was DM's intent and was also a major reason they didn't try to get the Markman overturned in the courts.

Now I wonder why they even had the attorneys bring the issue up in the claim construction briefs submitted to the USPTO in November 2011. Guess I don't understand the purpose of the Claim Construction Briefs.

Just trying to figure out what's going on.