Free
Message: Re: Powerful response for "patent 774"by Stephen Durant( 1/20/2012 USPTO re-exam)
13
Jan 19, 2012 10:31AM
6
Jan 19, 2012 09:22PM
4
Jan 20, 2012 06:55PM
6
Jan 21, 2012 10:41PM

"We must distinguish our unique advantages within this consideration."

e.Digital's VPP and VCC management to the removable memory(the device) socket interface is novel and Gurries explains it.

He also explains that the memory considerations of the prior art are not external removable memory issues, but are circuit board memory issues.

IMO, it doesn't make any difference if the memory is a plug-in to a PCB or an external memory plug-in......the control coupling of the VCC and VPP pins by e.Digital methods will be the same.

IMO, there will be no reverse anything of the prior art to see what makes them tick.....e.Digital has their IP spelled out for a reason and they do not.....IMO, the prior art could care less, especially knowing, that they have been bettered by some one else. The prior art did not put forth the challenge in this debate, it was simply exemplified by others and has nothing to gain..

doni

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply