Thanks, Sman. After reading this a few times, I think I'm starting to "get it." I'll try to clarify and summarize. I find it encouraging. In order to file for the IPR Micron had to submit alternative claim language for the patent. They chose broad language, which is generally considered a good thing. But the language cannot be so broad that it is indefinite. That is like just tossing out a very wide net and saying that everything it snags, whether fish or old tires, is covered. Micron's proposed rewording doesn't address the unique contribution of '108 Claim 1 and is therefore indefinite. Fortunately, the Markman gave us a construction that is as broad as is reasonable while still being definite in spelling out what is unique and valuable about the patent.