RE: e.Digitals consideration of "primary memory ...

"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”"

Two options for the court to consider

The court ruled on the full phrase, option 1 that e.Digital ventured....as well as taking into consideration removing two little words "to be" the court was very decisive.

“creating the primary memory from a non-volatile, long-term storage medium wherein the primary memory comprises a plurality of blocks in which data segments are stored.”

RE: the full phrase(e.Digital), or the single word create(defendants)

"the Court must not have held in the tentative order that the term does not need further explanation. Instead, it must be that the Court is waiting to provide a full construction after the claim construction hearing."

??...

The court ruled on the full phrase, why would the court change its consideration?

If the court ruled on the single word "create" to represent the full phrase...it would then have to rule on the "Main memory" separately.

This makes no sense what they are considering…additional claims construction after the hearing?

I don’t think so, the court is on top of claim 1 and how it relates to the rest of the patent.

doni