If it were only that easy....

They need the CE cleaned up and the matter of RAM used and interfacing the flash....understood by the court.

Gagged and specifically sized RAM interfaces the flash.....period!!!! Makes no difference if the RAM is on the microcontroller/ microprocessor or stand alone. The RAM is used to transmit data into and out of the flash. The re-exam now shows RAM on the Microprocessor....patent 108 specially states the use of RAM and it was not re examined.

This is the current defendants proposed construction for ...."flash memory" regarding 737....it is very much the same as what the defendants in Colorado proposed, which they entered leaning on the Markman results. These defendants are leaning on the CE to propose the following...

"flash memory ’737: 1, 4, 6,9, 13 "block erasable non-volatile memory that acts as the main general purpose storage region, to which the microprocessor has direct access, instead of RAM"

======

Colorado construction proposed for 737 and 774...

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 "

Would that be a reason not to allow what the current defendants are now trying to do through 54(b) ?

RE: 54(b) the condition of similarity....

"I don't think that I've ever seen an instance where the prevailing party obtained the entry of a Rule 54(b) order in its favor, only to see the losing party then refuse to appeal in the belief that the trial court had erroneously entered the Rule 54(b) certification because the certified claim was not distinct enough from the claims still pending in the trial court."

"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for the joinder of unrelated claims against the same party in the same lawsuit, and therefore it is possible that one claim that is resolved early in the case will have little or nothing in common with the other claims that remain in the case."

anyway...defendants are very much relating the flash of 774 and the flash of 737(hinged by birth)..... as the same....a non existent...non functional issue of e.Digitals patents.

smans link 54(b)

doni