"Applicant’s statements at issue followed an agreement between the Applicant and the Examiner as 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."

The dually combined effect of Claim 19 (field of use analog) and Claim 1(field of use digital) OVERCOME SCHRODER utilizing a "sole" flash memory.....where normally, that would not be the case. The reason that "recording medium" is present in claim 19 is to distinguish two memory issues, one being a dedicated analog memory(recording medium) and the other a flash memory being the same flash memory of claim 1.

doni