"Krueger discloses all limitations of Claim 1 of the ’108 patent, and that Claim 1 is therefore invalid."
I beg to differ on the comment "all"..
That aside
Kruger discloses claim limitations as they relate to the body and teachings of Krugers Specifications.....where the claims may or may not read similar to e.Digitals claims.
Where e.Digitals claim term in question most definitely exhibits language not present in the prior art phrase.... where that additional claim language relates to the body and teachings of e.Digitals Specifications.
As for broadest limitation of the two phrases....
Kruger...“a logical link between the previous logical data segment and the new data segment”
In reviewing that term can it place(interperte) the scope of e.Digitals specifications as to not needing directive structures?
===============================
e.Digital.... “a pointer written to the previous logical data segment that points to the physical location of the new data segment,”
In reviewing that term can it place(interperte) the scope of e.Digitals specifications as to not needing directive structures? Can it also place(interperte) the scope of Krugers claim term?
e.Digitals term can benefit both and is the broadest...
doni
