That is the nub of it.

The defendants can't have it both ways. They want the judge to rule that '774 and '108 are identical in all aspects except the dual mics. BUT, they also want him to rule that the RAM, which is explicitly mentioned in '108, isn't present in either '108 or '774, even though the USPTO has ruled that RAM is present in '108 and (upon re-exam) in '774.

If defendants admit that the patents are identical, except for the dual mics, then they have to admit also that the RAM specification in '108 also applies to '774.

Bottom line is that '774 and '108 both rely on RAM. This is not "opinion." It is fact, as has been verified by the USPTO. The court must acknowledge this. When opinion is contradicted by overwhelming factual evidence, the facts must prevail.