The only thing I see as a problem for the 39 recent named and 108....

Item b (cache) of claim 1, I noted recently as being important....guess what that is?

It's the RAM issue of 774 that the CO judge ruled as not being there.

In some way the defendants are going to rally their claims construction around item b of claim 1 in similar fashion as the CO claims construction...Only because of the recent CE ruling connecting 108 in the mess, even though the RAM issue is spelled out explicitly.

The current appeal is also important in getting 108 unhinged so it can stand on its own merits. However, if things pan out positive on appeal, it's game over for all defendants.

doni