For the 108 patent, item (b)cache of claim 1...is a RAM issue. With that, as I see things, the judges CE ruling in favor of the defendants is holding hostage the RAM issue for 774, and if it is upheld by the appeals court we have problems right down the line regarding the RAM issue...even though it is spelled out in 108.

Rephrase..

For the 108 patent, item (b)cache of claim 1...is a RAM issue. With that, as I see things, the judge ruling on CE in favor of the defendants... is holding hostage the RAM issue for 774.

If the judges considerations (not necessarily being the RAM issue) are upheld by the appeals court we have problems right down the line regarding the RAM issue...even though it is spelled out in 108.

The legal system is either going to identify with the re-exam or disqualify it as the CE judge did.

108 may get disconnected from the appeal, however, the defendants with future claims construction of it and others, will identify with the CO defendants claims construction of 774....which is exactly what current defendants considered for 737 in the current cases...they formed claims construction surrounding the no RAM issue....and that becasue of the 774 CE ruling.

doni