Just to try and simplify all the verbiage defendants exhibit ...

1. "Plaintiff mischaracterizes Defendants’ alternative proposed construction as “convey[ing] something other than the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘primary memory.’”

2. "Additionally, it is Plaintiff’s construction of this longer “creating” term that is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning both parties agree should be accorded to the single- word term “creating.” (See e.g., Doc. No. 35 at 6: fn. 5.)"

3. The Court’s tentative construction specifically does not construe “primary memory.” Further, both sides agree that to be considered “primary memory,” the computer’s microprocessor must have direct access to it.

NO.. itmustnot !!! and the court is going to realize this limitation you are trying to impose.

It's NOT an "agreed upon requirement"...this is what Handal asked for: "primary memory = e.Digital believes that this claim term should be construed together with the rest of the limitation within which it is contained as set forth below. To the extent the term is to be construed separately, e.Digital proposes the following construction: “addressable storage to which a computer system’s microprocessor has direct access”"

I do not read the word "must" in their.

Freudian slip? Because pharsing the responce statement with "must have " is not consiient with what e.Digial proposes, as it is a limitation to what e.Digital proposes.

Therefore:

Defendants are “convey[ing] something other than the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘primary memory.’” as it relates to the entire patent.

doni