SP, for you and others here, the shortest version of all the crap is the following challenged issue.

"Claim 1 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Krueger 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.”

In the proposed constructed claim phrase, which is gathered from the Krueger patent, the petitioner considers it to have a broader meaning than e.Digitals claim phrase.

All the material will be sorted out to come to a conclusion as to what of the two phrases have the broadest meaning. As it pertains to e.Digitals claim phrase and 445 /108 patent specifications, ...compared to the proposed claim phrase produced from the Krueger specifications and its pointer details.

The proposed logical link claim phrase does not exist in the Krueger claims, with that, it's not a straight out claim to claim comparison. The petitioner wants the PTO panel to interpret the phrase from the Krueger specifications as they propose it ....and then compare it to the existing e.Digital claim phrase.

The petitioner is considering that the proposed “a logical link between the previous logical data segment and the new data segment” as gathered from the prior art has a broader meaning than e.Digitals phrase... “a pointer written to the previous logical data segment that points to the physical location of the new data segment.” .

In that, the petitioner feels that e.Digitals phrase will then be invalidated.

Myself.. FWIW...I do not see it happening....but no guarantee on that.

Proposed: “a logical link between the previous logical data segment and the new data segment”

e.Digital: “a pointer written to the previous logical data segment that points to the physical location of the new data segment.”

IMVHO...e.Digitals phrase is existing and is composed properly to its specifications having two considerations...

Considered in that phrase is logical management between data segments (as the proposed claim considers) with hierarchical considerations, also considered are physical location properties. These physical properties refer to the physical memory raw data management....without allocation or allocation tables as considered in the Krueger patent.

Where after all that, I'd like to see the 1-29-1992 "Priority: 29.01.92 US 828763" as it relates to EPO "Application number: 93101396" filed 1-29-1993 and not 93101396.5...appearing to be a version 5 of some sort....supposedly filed in 1-29-1993. Where that version may be a 5th modification to the original application dated later than e.Digitals priority date.