"IMO this little victory is significant. Any victory, in the current climate, against Apple, is significant."

I can appreciate what ronran considers...

However, if Apple walked away it would have been a big let down, the judge is making Apple stay in the game. Apples 12(c) consideration had to do with a flash memory plug assemble issue as well. 170 may be highlighted, however, with the plug issue and 774 patent consideration for that, I can see other issues changing.

Namely...

CE was granted to defendants for the phrase item B. “a flash memory module which operates as sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals and is capable of retaining recorded digital information for storage in nonvolatile form” as the Colorado judge desided the meanings for.

However, 737 and 774 did not have its day under Item A not determined in Colorado.

A. “flash memory” (Claims 1, 2 and 19 of the ‘774 Patent and Claim 5 of the ‘737 Patent)

e.Digital’s Proposed Construction: "block erasable non-volatile memory"

Defendants’ Proposed Construction: "block erasable non-volatile memory that is the main memory of the system "

I light of the re-exam...though he went with the Colorado ruling for item B...he will be overseeing the construction of item A...

Will the current defendants form the same claims construction as the Colorado defendants did....

IMVHO...In light of the re-exam they can't .....block erasable non-volatile memory can not be used as a main memory in place of RAM...because in the real world it is not an over write memory ...PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Perhaps this word twisting against e.Digital will eventually be resolved in the real world.

This "block erasable non-volatile memory" flies in the face of the Colorado consideration in view of the re-exam.

doni