Doni, your diligence, knowledge and patience in researching and explaining all this are amazing. Thanks. After reading your most recent post a few times and reviewing a few earlier ones, I think I may be starting to catch on. As I understand it, Micron is claiming that its preferred construction of Claim 1 should be adopted even though it was no accepted by the court. Nor is it in Krueger. However, that language, while it does logically link data segments, doesn't address a fundamental teaching of '108, which is the elimination of FATs. So, EDIGs language should be considered broader and more inclusive because it allows for everything included in Micron's proposed language, and adds the ability to link data segments directly without the overhead created by tables. It is this addition that is unique. It is not in any way a limitation but rather an important and original addition to existing knowledge. Just trying to get a handle on this. Thanks again.