letgo...Thanks a bunch ...I'm just so busy at this time....

Read through the important stuff...

For the most part, defendant elaborates on the 774 history including the re-exam issues and amendments made.....and how the amendments, for the most part, do not relate to the CO "sole memory" ruling.

Thing is, e.Digital did not initiate the conditions of the re-exam that the defendants elaborate on....e.Digital did, however, get to amend a schematic drawing that takes care of the "sole memory" issue by adding RAM to the schematic with the full acceptance of the USPTO.

Defendant, however, leaves out one important bit when comparing 774 to 108 as being the same, word for word, with regard to the "sole memory" issue.

108 spells out explicitly the RAM details that are not specifically spelled out in 774 and they forget to mention that in their brief when making the "sole memory" comparison.

108 was not at issue in Colorado.

108 is not directly patent associated to 774 ...only by reference....two separate entities.

774 was amended to reflect that reference...and the sole memory issue does not change because of the schematic change.

What the appeals court has in front of it is one patent having RAM (SRAM to be exact) explicitly a condition and one patent generalizing implicitly to one of ordinary skill in the art.

The court has to give some form of attention to how 108 conditions RAM, yet has the same language as the 774 regarding the "sole memory" issue.

Three judges to decide our fate over the differences of the two patents.

Where does it end?????????????

doni