Agoracom: Small Cap Investment - e.Digital - Re: 737 Claim 5 cancelled, New claim 13-Cguilfor

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

sman998

Rank: President [?]

Points: 96044 [?]

Votes: 125 Score: 3.9 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Re: 737 Claim 5 cancelled, New claim 13-Cguilfor - victory on Preamble strategy

in response to

Re: 737 Claim 5 cancelled, New claim 13-Cguilfor

cguilfor

posted on Sep 25, 2012 06:56PM

I believe e.DIGITAL patent attorney for re - examination achieved most of reasonable broad interpretation of claim 5 and it is a major victory for them and e.DIGITAL vs completerejection of claim 5. Dont forget in case of appeal it could easily would take another 3 yearswith no certain positve conclusion.Followings are excerpts of prosecution history thatshows we achieved claim 5 as a whole including both the claim Preamble and the claim body.

Again importance of this paragraph : PATENT OWNER RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE PRIOR ART OF RECORD DOES NOT TEACH OR SUGGEST THE METHOD OF CLAIM 5 UNDER A BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THAT CLAIM AT THE TIME OF INVENTION.

jmho

e.Digital proposes a construction of this phrase that clarifies that a“memory integrity test” is a “test to verify whether memory is defective.” e.Digital’s proposed construction is consistent with the ‘737 Patent specification, which states: “it would be another improvement

over the prior art if before recording a message, the recording media could be tested to verify thatit is nondefective” and “Fig. 3A is a flowchart of the steps for determining whether recording

media is defective.” (Exh. 2 (‘737 Patent) at 2:10-12 and 5:23-24 (emphasis added)). Based on these two clear statements in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a

memory integrity test to be a test to verify whether memory is defective, as proposed by e.Digital. (From MAY ,2012 prosecution)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The claim 5 Preamble recites“is suitable for recording voice messages “ which sets forth a Structural relationship between the “Removable flash memory recording medium chip “ and the“ Hand held device “ that requires the “ Memory integrity test “ be a media test to solve the defectiveMemory problem.

Patent owner respectfully submits that recording language of claim5 as a whole including both the claim preamble and the claim body.

In light of the specification , the term “ Memory integrity test “ most broadly relates to a test of the integrityof memory media and not at all to a test of data stored in the memory.

Patent owner amends claim 5 to explicitly state in the body of claim 5 what patent owner believes already to be the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the preamble claim 5 , which is that the test recited in claim 5 to a media test.

This amendment is consistent with the patent owner interpretation of claim before and after amendment. Patent owner respectfully submits that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the method of claim 5 under a broadest reasonable interpretation of that claim at the time of invention.