"I think it was just a courtesy on behalf of the judge."

It's not about one judge...it's about three.

The oral, IMO, would have been denied had it been a clear cut case. There are many issues involved for this appeal.

1. The arguments that Handal presented in opposition to the motion for CE. It involved details that related to the Colorado ruling on the sole memory issue. Those issues involved Handal introducing patent 108 in his arguments in opposition to the Colorado ruling.

2. The arguments presented by Handal with regard to the USPTO re-exam...and how the CO judge ruled on issues that have been re-qualified by the USPTO for a better understanding...and that the CO judge did not have the clarity that now exists.

3. The details ventured by the SC court with regard to the defendants CE motion. The judge basically considered that the issues of the USPTO re-exam are not important, as the re-exam was not about the sole memory issue...There are many issues that need clarity just in deciding the USPTO issue….where the sole memory issue was addressed in the re-exam

4. There is the issue of 108 itself...it was tied to the CE ruling ...and it had absolutely nothing to do with the Colorado ruling.

For all the issues involved, I would consider that is why the oral was approved.... where in many instance they are not.

doni