The courts removing "to be" regarding the "main memory" issue of claim 1...indicates to me, the court knows exactly what the independent claims 2(3) and 5(6) are all about….and has removed challengeable language regarding 2(3) and 5(6).

Also, keep in mind that if those two little words are to stay, and the rest of the issues remain as proposed, it’s still a good deal.

NAND memory needs RAM....RAM is a process of 108 (this issue was lost @ the CO ruling)

NOR does not need RAM, however, e.Digital treats the two memory types with RAM (this issue was lost @ the CO ruling)

WE get back those two issues worst case scenario.....and that is great.

=====

Best-case scenario, we get NOR without having to implement RAM… where the two little challengeable words are removed as proposed. (This is what 774 was limited to after the CO ruling)

If this happens.... this court emphatically understands claims 2(3) and 5(6). As it looks now, the court does understand, because she proposed it based on Hedricks consideration if “Primary memory” is construed by itself.

Can the court be swayed by defendants, if the court has come to understand the full intent of 108 and 774?

The court, tentatively, is giving us back the full limitations of 774

Also keep in mind, the two little words are only challengeable for a best-case scenario…the court is simply removing that challenge.

All previous cases that settled post CO ruling, settled on the merits without the need of RAM….with prejudice….for whatever value that was worth.

New merits of settlement are about to be considered with RAM…. for whatever value they are worth

FWIW

7 days

doni