I paste the Purcell conclusion to Krueger just for fun, knowing many of you have no idea how to interpret much of the response, if one read it....however, I do and I'm impressed.

=====================

"Because Krueger does not disclose at least five different limitations of claim 1 of the ’108 patent, Petitioners have not and cannot satisfy their burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits should the Petition be granted.

Accordingly, the Petition should be denied to the extent it relies upon Krueger.

VII. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Petitioners have failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. Patent Owner therefore respectfully requests that the Petition for Inter Partes Review be denied in its entirety."

=====================

e.Digital's considerations are very straight forward and point directly to the heart of all the issues.

My approach to it all, having a fair knowledge of e.Digital's IP, was in reading through the petition...familiarizing myself with the Krueger patent and 3/4's of the Katayama patent...forming my questions and concerns from that point only....and then waiting for e.Digital's response.

Then in fine detail / markup, absorb the e.Digital's 60 page response. All I can say....my concerns went away...and my questions were answered...

All we can do now is wait and see where it goes. e.Digital is prepared for what ever happens.

IMO, Micron settles, as the civil case is out in front of the IPR...where the court has already made its determinations for the questions Micron is raising in the IPR.

For others that may attempt IPR, or have already started...the current response is free to read...have at it....where that's a preliminary.

doni