Letgo...did you follow up on this....

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

Defendants object to this section of Plaintiff’s proposed order. Plaintiff mischaracterizes Defendants’ alternative proposed construction as “convey[ing] something other than the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘primary memory.’” (Doc. No. 44 at 17:14-15.) As an initial matter, the Court has not construed “primary memory.” See discussion of “primary memory,” infra at 5:7-6:5.) 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.)

E. primary memory

Defendants object to this section of Plaintiff’s proposed order. In short, Plaintiff’s proposed order misinterprets the Court’s tentative claim construction order, which did not yet provide a construction for “primary memory.” The Court’s tentative claim construction order did not provide any tentative interpretation for

“primary memory,” not even “does not require construction.” This is in contrast to several other terms, where the Court provided “plain and ordinary meaning.”

Plantiff does not "misinterpret"...lol

"While Plaintiff apparently reads the Court’s tentative order as a refusal to construe the term, defendants understand that the Court is reserving construction of this term for after the claim construction hearing. Defendants’ interpretation is bolstered by the fact that “primary memory” appears throughout the body of the claim and is subject to a genuine dispute between the parties. Further, the Court specifically identified “primary memory” in its Scheduling Order Regarding Claim Construction. (Doc. No. 31 at 2:19.) "

I don't tink so...lol

"Defendants further object to Plaintiff’s proposed order of grouping “primary memory” with the longer phrase of step (a) as being inconsistent with the Court’s tentative claim construction order.

The Court tentatively construed that term to mean “[c]reating 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.”

Yes it did and you know why "to be" was removed. It incoperates Handals consideration for primary memoy if construed seprately.

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.. it must not !!! and the court is going to realize this limination you are trying to impose.

"Plaintiff’s proposed order ignores this agreed-upon requirement. Because the parties agree on at least this much in the construction, 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."

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.

FWIW

doni