Excerpts of e.DIGITAL claim construction briefs that submitted to USPTO ( 3 )
in response to
by
Message: Excerpts of e.DIGITAL claim construction briefs that submitted to USPTO ( 3 )
To avoid any doubt as to whether Defendants are relying on extrinsic evidence rather than the ‘774 Patent specification, the phrase “main memory” is not used anywhere in the ‘774 Patent and the prosecution history does not contain the Microsoft Dictionary definition of “main memory” or “RAM” on which Defendants rely at pages 15 and 16 of their Opening Brief. 5A,
Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 18.03[2][e] (2007) (“In Markman, the Federal Circuit
used “extrinsic evidence” in a third sense, defining it to include ‘all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.’”) citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(enbanc).
Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 18.03[2][e] (2007) (“In Markman, the Federal Circuit
used “extrinsic evidence” in a third sense, defining it to include ‘all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.’”) citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(enbanc).
Moreover, Defendants’ chicanery with their “main memory” verbiage continues in this portion of their Opening Brief. Reading Defendants’ Opening Brief, one would think the ‘218 Patent discusses “flash memory” as “main memory.” (D. Op. Br. at 17). While Defendants want
to turn the “flash memory” discussed in the ‘218 Patent into the “main memory” (in lieu of RAM) of the ‘774 Patent, neither the Patents-in-Suit nor the ‘218 Patent use the term “main memory.” Thus, Defendants’ characterization of the ‘218 Patent as a basis to introduce the concepts of main memory into the claims of the ‘774 Patent is misleading, at best.
Defendants’ discussion of the ‘218 Patent is the extent of their analysis of the ‘774 Patent specification with respect to their proposed construction of flash memory. By comparison,e.Digital explains in its Opening Brief why Defendants’ proposed construction is contradicted by
multiple figures and excerpts from the specification that all teach the use of flash memory as storage memory for the received processed sound electrical signals, while other memory circuitry is used as part of processing the audio data.
to turn the “flash memory” discussed in the ‘218 Patent into the “main memory” (in lieu of RAM) of the ‘774 Patent, neither the Patents-in-Suit nor the ‘218 Patent use the term “main memory.” Thus, Defendants’ characterization of the ‘218 Patent as a basis to introduce the concepts of main memory into the claims of the ‘774 Patent is misleading, at best.
Defendants’ discussion of the ‘218 Patent is the extent of their analysis of the ‘774 Patent specification with respect to their proposed construction of flash memory. By comparison,e.Digital explains in its Opening Brief why Defendants’ proposed construction is contradicted by
multiple figures and excerpts from the specification that all teach the use of flash memory as storage memory for the received processed sound electrical signals, while other memory circuitry is used as part of processing the audio data.
20 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply