As discussed in e.Digital’s Opening Brief at page 24, the specification teaches that the“control circuitry 21” includes “memory circuitry 24”, which is different from the “flash memory module 29.” (Exh. 1 (‘774 Patent) at Fig. 1 and 5:33-37). The ‘774 Patent specification further
teaches how the audio signal is compressed (i.e., processed) by the compression circuitry coupled to the memory circuitry for storage on flash memory as claimed in claim 10:The basic functionality is as follows. If in are cording mode, the micro processor sends commands to the DSP placing it into a record mode. The microprocessor
places the DSP in a record mode where it retrieves data from the codec,compresses it and returns it to the microprocessor in the form of status words. The
micro controller then takes that data and sends it out to the PCMCIA connector or through the PCMCI connector to the flash memory module.To get the data back, the status request command is sent by the microprocessor
and data is returned in compressed form. The compressed data is retrieved in 16 bit format. The specific addresses are written in the microprocessor for
maintaining data location. The process involves sequential addressing through flash memory. The microprocessor's responsibility is to separate different messages and to be able to index the different messages and the different offsets within those messages. It maintains an address pointer and sequentially takes byte
information from the DSP and writes it to memory in the form of a file.(Id. at 6:7-15 (emphasis added)). In other words, the compression in claim 10 is performed by
the DSP, microprocessor and CODEC working together to process data so that it can be sent to the flash memory module for storage. This processing of the data includes retrieving data from and sending data to memory resident in or used by the DSP and microprocessor (see underlined actions in quote above) as part of processing before the processed data is eventually sent to the
flash memory module for storage “in the form of a file.” This is confirmed by the use of past tense in claims 1 and 19 -- “sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals” -- as discussed in e.Digital’s Opening Brief at page 21, and the reference to “memory circuitry” in claim 10. Nevertheless, Defendants fail to even consider this claim language or portion of the specification in Defendants’ Opening Brief.
Second, although Defendants’ claim to find support in the ‘774 Patent specification for their “main memory” limitation (D. Op. Br. at 16), their argument begins with references to extrinsic evidence (i.e., definitions of “main memory” and “RAM”), rather than the ‘774 Patent specification itself.5 Then, Defendants use that extrinsic evidence to characterize the teachings of another patent (the ‘218 Patent issued to Intel) that is referenced in the ‘774 Patent, but is wholly unrelated to the ‘774 Patent family. Defendants characterize the ‘218 Patent as supporting their construction by arguing that it describes a flash memory module that could be used as “main memory . . . like conventional RAM.” (D. Op. Br. at 16).
The ‘774 Patent specification, however, contains no such discussion of the ‘218 Patent and instead merely cites the ‘218 Patent as a source for understanding one embodiment of the flash memory module described in the ‘774 Patent. (Exh. 1 (‘774 Patent) at 4:19-21). To the
extent Defendants are attempting to strictly limit the type of “flash memory” to the disclosure of the ‘218 Patent, such an attempt runs afoul of the Federal Circuit’s repeated admonition to not limit the scope of claims to a disclosed embodiment. RFDelaware,Inc.v.PacificKeystoneclaim 10. Nevertheless, Defendants fail to even consider this claim language or portion of the specification in Defendants’ Opening Brief.
Second, although Defendants’ claim to find support in the‘774 Patent specification for their “main memory” limitation (D. Op. Br. at 16), their argument begins with references to extrinsic evidence (i.e., definitions of “main memory” and “RAM”), rather than the ‘774 Patent
specification itself.5 Then, Defendants use that extrinsic evidence to characterize the teachings
of another patent (the ‘218 Patent issued to Intel) that is referenced in the ‘774 Patent, but is wholly unrelated to the ‘774 Patent family. Defendants characterize the ‘218 Patent as supporting their construction by arguing that it describes a flash memory module that could be
used as “main memory . . . like conventional RAM.” (D.Op. Br. at 16).