Re: yeah we got a re-cert but?
in response to
by
Message: yeah we got a re-cert but?
Your 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.)
“It's old news but darn good to know.”
What’s old news?That RAM was included as part of the patent re-exam?That certainly wasn’t old news to me.I remember reading the revised ‘774 and didn’t find RAM anywhere in the modified claims or the new claims.I didn’t know that EDIG had submitted new diagrams to the PTO identifying RAM as an integral part of the ‘774; the PTO must have agreed RAM is included in the ‘774 because they issued a re-exam certificate.I think this is great news for us and bodes well for early settlements and/or a Markman win.
-----
CO19 Doc 395 (Markman ruling), Judge Krieger clearly indicated that RAM is not required. Of course, she only had the initial prosecution history and not the re-exam history, to base her ruling on.
Excerpt from Doc 395:
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.
Handal wrote in Apple Doc 34:
However, the reexamination history, which was not available to Judge Krieger, clearly shows that the microprocessor of the new claim 33 utilizes RAM.
Thus, the explicit introduction of RAM on reexamination requires new consideration of the very heart of Judge Krieger’s analysis. Judge Krieger, however, simply did not have this reexamination history and therefore could not have considered it in making her determinations – something that this court has the obligation to do if it undertakes to construe the claims. Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion must be denied since new claims, reexamination history and other evidence now exists that Judge Krieger did not have the opportunity to consider when she construed the terms of old claims 1 and 19.
18 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply