Re: judges consideration...

"e.Digital points to Figures 3 and 4 of the ‘108 patent which reference SRAM(7)to suggest that the sole memory limitation should be construed differently from the construction rendered in Pentax. It also contends that this Court should consider the ‘108 patent prosecution history in construing the term anew.

"Notwithstanding the figures and the detailed comparison in the specification between the ‘774 patent and the ‘108 patent, the specification, including the discussion of the figures, does not mention SRAM. To the contrary, the discussion of prior art touts the benefits of using flash drive over RAM. (See, e.g.,Defs’ Ex. 3 at 1:26 -2:41.)"

Amazing.... "To the contary, the discussion of prior art touts the benefits of using flash drive over RAM." That should be considered in the context it was meant to be, as you can not utilize a Flash entity as a RAM .."

" the discussion of prior art touts the benefits of using flash drive as an "EMULATION" over RAM" and the SRAM is need to make that happen.

It is an amazing the conundrum we are caught up in....the judge does not identify with the SRAM identified in the 108 patent, yet, other then the dual microphone issue, he sees the patents as identical. The judge does not identify with the addition of the RAM now signified in the 774 patent.

doni