Sink..They are basically saying, the sole memory language shows no signs of modification that could be interpreted differently post re-exam.... therefore, these terms cannot be re-litigated.

What the appeals court did not understand are the same issues that the CO court did not understand.

The 774 patent is a patent for a device, where within its claims are elements that detail the use of two types of flash memory...NOR or NAND. The device could be detailed to consider one or the other.

NOR is addressable directly by a processor and NAND is not needing an intermediate RAM component to address it.

It's a matter of timing when this patent was established, it was established when NOR flash prevalent.

Norris had a choice in covering both types having to be careful of not detailing the patent where one, or the other was canceled out. Which in the end that is what happened, NAND was canceled out because RAM was not accentuated in the patent.

Had RAM been present the opposite would have happened, NOR would have been canceled out.

It was a matter of interpretation by one of skill in the art in reading the claims, the differences established between them....and knowing that RAM was rudimentarily necessary .

The CO judge felt that it was not interpretable by one of skill in the art. That RAM was not needed and sided, knowingly or not knowingly, with the issue of flash not needing any RAM.... or NOR.

Not that I feel it's overly important, the appeals court in not giving any consideration to two types of memory, knowingly or not knowingly, have decided to uphold the CO ruling and the CE ruling regarding the sole memory language.

The sole memory language if directly modified to 774 would pigeon holed NAND only, and the concept of directly addressing NOR would be pushed aside...As it turned out the opposite happened, NOR was pigeon holed and NAND was pushed aside.

The sole memory phrasing could no be modified directly...not in the re-exam or in the initial patent.

A tricky mess to cover both issues on the same patent....then considered to a CO judge to decide if it was interpretable by one of skill in the art.

My question … RE 774 “therefore, these terms cannot be re-litigated”…. can they be re-litigated for NOR not needing RAM? Or have both courts decide that no memory can be litigated?

doni