Patent 747 amended - Question for the board in order to appease my curiosity... thanks in advance.

So, according to the following statement from the Markman Hearing notes, we have amended our patent 747 to overcome the disparity about the use of RAM and SOLE MEMORY and it has been approved by the examiner. With our amended patent, we have overcome the following statement. Am I correct in say this? It looks that way to me, but I'm computer technologist not a patent lawyer and have very limited, if any, knowledge of patent law. So, I'm in the dark, please enlighten me.

Taken from E.Digital Corporation v. Pentax of America

http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110628_0004032.DCO.htm/qx

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the proper construction of the phrase "a flash memory module which operates as sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals" is best addressed in two parts. The phrase "received processed sound electrical signals" refers to the electrical signals that have been generated by the microphone and passed through the amplifier and gain control circuits, but have yet to be converted by the CODEC. The remainder of the disputed language requires that the device use only flash memory, not RAM or any other memory system, while engaging the CODEC, DSP (as applicable), and memory control functions, as well as storing the fully-manipulated data.

On another note: Hey Gil, I sure do miss you... I hope they have nice golf course in the great beyond.