"If you carefully read defendant paragraphs above, indeed you also appreciate they also admit the improvement of second microphone in bolded sentence. JMHO"

I do, as you, it's not that they admit the microphone improvement, it's that they consider 774 and 108 identical other than that improvement.

With that consideration, the RAM that is present in 108 is by default present in 774....and the USPTO on re-exam allowed the RAM considered in 108 to be cross referenced into 774.

The appeal judges have to consider what the USPTO re-certified and what the defendant is stating.

How can e.Digital not win this round on both of those considerations?

IMVHO, the details of the CE appeal are not about what happened in CO. , they are about the authority that the judge utilized in approving the CE. The appeal judges have to act on the considerations of the CE judge and not the CO Markman ruling ...With that, was the authority used correctly by denying e.Digital the re-exam issues and the referencing of 108 to make their case?

doni