RAM. The intrinsic evidence speaks of “reducing” reliance on RAM and even discloses using RAM as the cache memory taught by claim 1. (Ex. B (’445 patent)
at 8:61-64 and dependent claim 14.) The invention therefore does not entirely exclude or “abandon” RAM as Defendants argue. Likewise, the patentees did not exclude the possibility that cache memory could perform the functions of primary memory. If a cache memory meets the limitations of claim 1, then the claim is infringed.
