As discussed with you ....

IPR2015-00519(Micron)........12-31-2014.....filing date to be resolved

No change as of this am on that matter.

Filing date to be resolved aside.

If any of you have been following this event, one of the main contentions of the IPR is over data segment programming to flash for organizational preference, utilizing link list.

This being an opinion of one of the defendant hired professional witnesses:

"177. For the reasons set forth in detail above, it is therefore my opinion that, to the extent that “a logical link between the previous logical data segment and the new data segment” is construed to be broader than “a pointer written to the previous logical data segment that points to the physical location of the new data segment,” Krueger discloses all limitations of Claim 1 of the ’108 patent, and that Claim 1 is therefore invalid."

There's a lot of chatter as to what physical location represents, however, I'm not getting into that other than the somewhat brief description. Simply, e.Digitals physical properties are handled differently than status quo allocation methods....where the industry, as a whole, functions on link list methods. e.Digital does not claim to have invented the link list , just as it does not claim to have invented caching . In a nut shell e.Digital writes better music through industry standard notation.

Moving on, Defendant is trying to establish the proposed prior art phrase as... "is construed to be broader than"...without having the word "physical location" considered within e.Digitals phrase.

e.Digitals phrase is broader containing the word "physical location" within logical linking (or link list). The word "physical location" represents the absolute ability of detailing itemized and separate segment(file) accumulations with physical properties, where the prior phrase does not.

The proposed prior art segment sets are allocated with a physical address for the lead link in typical status quo fashion. Where the lead link has a representation on an allocation table.....e.g FAT....to create one complete file by a set of segments tied together through a link list.

In other words, for e.Digital, each segment is a discrete file with physical location properties. Where the prior art phrase is a set of segments linked together creating one complete file...this file has its lead link addressed, where that address location is then programmed(stored) into yet another file or allocation table(considered a virtual file of an OS). With that, as the independent files accumulate, the allocation(virtual file) table grows.

Now, consider the allocation table growing as file data is created....and contrast that to what e.Digital does where each segment is a discrete file with physical location properties....how big would a virtual file grow, if e.Digital implemented allocation in that manner? The allocation table would be as big as the data ...lol e.Digital does not use allocation in that manner to manage its data. That is why "physical location" within its phrase is important and carries a much broader meaning than the prior art phrase. This, by the way, is what allows e.Digital to edit data as it does...e.g video, audio...any type ...

Defendant argues, in its civil case for claims construction language, for the novel implications of e.Digitals methods ..paraphrase defendant construction language "without the use of virtual files...e.g FAT (or allocation tables in general) in trying to pin e.Digital to its novel principles only....where allocation tables should not to be recognized in a case.

If the examiners review the civil proceedings...it should not be hard for them to recognize in the civil process that the defendant has admitted to the novel facts patented...in the manner that it applied its considered claims construction language.

e.Digital won that argument, the court recognized that e.Digital can use both its novel methods as well as status quo allocation methods....in hybrid fashion.

IMO, the IPR is going no where, however, I would hope that the MICRON IPR is run through the full process and put to rest the "physical" implications. Separate the considered physical properties of e.Digital as compared to status quo physical representations through allocation and END IT.

That would be up to Handal, however, I feel he can kill this IPR crap if he wishes to....it's all in the word discrete(individually separate and distinct).

FWIW
doni