doni, thanks for your insight and it's greatly appreciated.

United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a Reexamination Certificate for the ’774 patent

On August 14, 2012 (more than a year after issuance of Judge Krieger’s Markman Order and almost a year after the Colorado case was closed), the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a Reexamination Certificate for the ’774 patent, canceling the claims that Judge Krieger construed and adding new independent claims 33 and 34 together with several new dependent claims.

Quote from Mr. Woody Norris:

First, he [sic] contends that any person skilled in the art would implicitly understand, based on the computational tasks performed by the device, that RAM would be required: as Mr. Norris put it, “by the fact that there’s DSP in there and other functionality, [like a] microprocessor, it’s obvious to anyone with freshman knowledge of electronics, you’ve got RAM.” In other words, the Plaintiff’s position is that RAM is an indispensable component of a device engaging in these types of microprocessor-based computations, and that specifically referencing the presence of RAM in the patent would be superfluous.