"Do the CC's which EDig has recently prevailed on have any effect on Micron's case?'

Yes they do, where to me, the court (the judge and her team) have a complete understanding of the patents as challenged against the claim language the defendants presented.

The events of the civil court are real and deceive as the court understands the tech in the patents.

What is being challenged now is in regard to prior art and trying to have the language deemed un-patentable compared to prior art materials.

Where am I at with this, I have read 2/3rds of the Katayama patent, where at that point, I read nothing of similarity in relation to e.Digitals patents.

I then decided to follow the Krueger issue first as it involves one issue only. I have my thoughts that I would like to convey after reading the Kruger patent, however, I'm going to wait for Purcell / Handal to respond with all the bullett point differences.

I've already given my thoughts regarding the following Krueger(Microsoft) 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.”