In any case, the prosecution history excerpts on which Defendants rely do not support the limitation Defendants now propose. The fundamental problem with Defendants’ argument is that it is based on mischaracterizations of the Applicant’s use of the phrase “main memory.” The Applicant used main memory to refer to the memory for storing sound electrical signals that have been received and processed (i.e., as another way of describing the “sole memory” limitation to which the Applicant and Examiner reached agreement during the in-person interview); not the RAM used for processing the audio signal. (See July 20,1995 Amendment(attached to Pl. Op. Br. as Exh. 10) at p. 11).
This understanding also is confirmed by the design of the Flashback product itself that was available for purchase by one of ordinary skill in the art from the issuance of the patent through at least July 7, 2010 and demonstrated to the Patent Examiner. (See Exh. 4 (Norris

Likewise, it is clear that the Examiner understood Applicant’s references to main memory as storage memory as evidenced by her statement in the Examiner Interview Summary:
“the flash memory is the sole memory to store the received processed sound electrical signal.”
(See Examiner Interview Summary Record dated July 17, 1995, attached as Exhibit B to Exh. 4(Norris Decl.)). The Examiner’s statement conveys the understanding that the flash memory is the sole memory that stores the already received and processed sound electrical signals; as
opposed to the sole memory for both processing and storage. If the Patent Examiner agreed with Defendants that flash memory was used in lieu of RAM to process the audio data, the proposed amendment would not have referred to “received processed sound electrical signal.” In short,Defendants’ interpretation of “main memory” as RAM memory for processing data simply can not be reconciled with this written statement by the Examiner, and even if accepted, Defendants’ argument creates a claim construction dispute within a claim construction dispute, i.e., what does main memory mean in the context of the ‘774 Patent?
Furthermore, the prosecution disclaimer cases cited by Defendants are distinguishable given the context in which the Applicant’s statements were made in this case. In the instant case, Applicant’s statements at issue followed an agreement between the Applicant and the Examineras to an amendment, based on which the Examiner agreed the claims would overcome the prior art. Indeed, as of the conclusion of the Examiner Interview, an agreement already existed as to exactly what needed to be done to bring the claim 1 into allowance. As the Examiner InterviewSummary Record clearly shows, the Examiner checked the box reflecting “Agreement was reached with respect to some or all of the claims in question.” (See Examiner InterviewSummary Record dated July 17, 1995, attached as Exhibit B to Exh. 4 (Norris Decl.)). The Examiner then expressly referenced claim 1 -- the very claim at issue in this case -- and stated the agreement, which does not make any reference to main memory or RAM:
APPLICANT WILL AMEND CLAIMS TO INCLUDE LIMITATION THAT WILL EXPRESSLY STATE THAT THE FLASH MEMORY IS THE SOLE MEMORY TO STORE THE RECEIVED PROCESSED SOUND ELECTRICAL SIGNAL. EXAMINER AGREED THAT SUCH ALIMITATION WOULD OVERCOME SCHRODER AND SHE WOULD UPDATE SEARCH ACCORDINGLY.