samn...all of the material is significant...thanks for putting it up.

"These days, the Federal Circuit is once again applying a "heavy presumption of ordinary meaning", with tightly proscribed exceptions, which typically results in broad patent claims. Courts have always walked a tightrope between enforcing patent claims at the full breadth of their language, and limiting the claims to the inventions described in the body of patent specifications. These days, the balance is decidedly tipping to the side of broad claims."

All the heat and friction is in the underlined above

" full breadth of their language," or broad meanings. Meaning that the claims language is not just determinate language of the specifications.

"limiting the claims to the inventions described in the body of patent specifications" or an ordinary meaning. Meaning that the claims language is determinate language of the specifications only.

The civil court has given us a broad meanings in the recent claims constructions.

That aside, the IPR determinations will not be derived by the Civil court considerations.

For the PTAB claims challenge will be ... after reading through all the particulars...of all the patents involved. It will be up to the board to determine where the novelty is in e.Digitals teachings. Where that novelty in combination to prior teachings has the legs to stand beyond the prior art.

ii. Claim 1 Is Obvious Over Krueger. This consideration does not take into account the novelty to manage the memory directly without allocation or allocation tables, where basically they want the PTAB to consider the uses of pointers as an Obvious issue.
Petitioner is exhibiting a claims construction phrase derived from Krueger pointer specifications....where in that, wants the issue considered as a claims construction issue.. ...with obvious considerations of pointers.

""To the extent the Board concludes that “a logical link between the previous logical data segment and the new data segment” should be construed broader than “a pointer written to the previous logical data segment that points to the physical location of the new data segment,” such as with the district court’s claim construction, Krueger renders Claim 1 obvious. For example, should the term be construed to include any linkage of data segments, Krueger discloses that term.""

If the IPR for Micron is not squashed for the statutory issues raised by Purcell, the above consideration will be construed by the PTAB and not the civil court.

How will the PTAB construe the issue is now the question.

doni