"I did not get the feeling Micron was presenting or even interested in what your post says."

My post were more pointed to the folk here who might have read Handals response. sman ..letgo for the most part...and I feel a few others may have taken the time to read Handals handy work....

For this issue....

"Judge Huff asked him if that path, if proved, would invalidate Section 1 of patent 108 thereby invalidating the entire patent. Micron said "YES"

Had they answered NO we might be seeing a completely different result.....except for this...

"My personal thoughts, and only that, was that Deberco did not remember much about what occured in 1995 but might have said something about one of the inventions and prior art in the same sentence therefore giving Micron it's leg to deny infringement on. I do not feel and was borne out by Mr. Handal and Judge Huff that there was any REAL substance to this stance. When Judge Huff queried Micron about this he gave no answer except to say we are going to use "INTENT AS THE BASIS OF OUR DEFENSE."

Defendant was hinging the new defense on Daberkos testimony..... dates and issues surrounding the FlashBack player. I was hoping this would be recognized..."Deberco did not remember much about what occured in 1995"

I had been sitting on pins and needles over it.....lol

Anyway thanks BUNCH!!!

doni