774 is, for the most part, a detail of micro-controller circuitry having references of software issues, however, those software references are not detailed specifically.

IMO, the circuitry issues of 774 have to be validated on their own merits and, when argued against a defendant 445 should not have to be a concern.

445 and 108 were, for the first case, part of the prosecution, however, in finalizing the issues with Samsung America, they were removed from that case.

A big part of the Samsung America's case was over control circuitry issues....Where the attorneys for Samasung ignored the presentations that e.Digital attorneys presented and they would not produce the documentation requested over those issues. They finally did give it, however, with a last minute, overbearing, 900 page razzle dazzle...while in the same moment petitioned the court to end the case. Arguing, that the material was in the public domain and e.Digital had more than enough time to find it. The court ignored the petition and they eventually settled.

The 774 control circuitry issues stood on their own merits, where Samsung and the others understood. These types of case issues were presented to the examiner, IMO, more or less making the point that the past defendants understood. That was the last document of the re-exam filed to PAIR where the examiner acknowledged. I looked at the documents....and the examiner put a big X on them, as if not to give any recognition them.

IMO, when e.Digital enforces 445...it's going to be over caching methods/format....and that is the Pull the SD card test. They, apparently, are using this test to get in the door on 774 control issues, however, after reviewing the Samsung issues, it doesn't appear to be the focus after getting in.

anyway...lots of moving parts

later

doni