"IN MY MIND (TRYING TO USE A LITTLE COMMON SENSE HERE) MICRON IS ADMITTING TO INFRINGING AND KNOWS IT MOST LIKELY WILL LOSE A COURT CASE THEREFORE IS CHANGING IT'S DEFENSE TO INVALIDATE THE ENTIRE 108 PATENT BY COMPLETELY CHANGING THE SUBJECT."
Frank...Micron is not admitting to anything...what Micron now fears, the claims and claim terms of 108 / 445 have proven to be worthy...there is no changing that .
With that, the approach now is to challenge prior art in the civil court, where the prior art belongs to e.Digital (Flashback ). Can you imagine, we have come all this way for a defendant to now suggest a challenge, where defendant claims that e.Digital's IP is out of sink in the way it progressed?
What came first the chicken (FlashBack) or the egg(774)?
Thing is, if I remember correctly, the FlashBack was utilized in the prosecution of the 774. If that is the case, what the defendants are suggesting makes no sense.
They are considering that the flashBack was not referenced in the 108? Where the PTO was duped in some manner.
The following is the history....
774 was filed Apr 19, 1994 as a digital recording device with removable flash memory.
====================================================
445 filed Mar 7, 1996 references 774 as could be utilized :
445 patent: "For example, the file system of the present invention is particularly useful for the flash memory used as primary memory in U.S. Pat. No. 5,491,774 for a HANDHELD RECORD AND PLAYBACK DEVICE WITH FLASH MEMORY by Norris et al. This patent is incorporated by reference herein, and provides a detailed example of the benefits of flash memory in a portable recorder. The essential feature of playback provided by the handheld recorder illustrates the requirement for real-time recall of data. In particular, it was mentioned that there are two methods of memory storage, organized by time or by subject matter. A recording device typically operates by storing data serially (sequentially) by time only. However, it should now be apparent that organizing voice messages by subject matter is now possible.
====================================================
108 was filed Jun 30, 1997
108 patent: "This patent application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/612,772, filed Mar. 7, 1996, for an operating system including improved file management for use in devices utilizing flash memory as main memory." 08/612,772 patented as 5,787,445
2. Prior Art
The present invention hereinafter incorporates by reference the materials disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,491,774 for a HANDHELD RECORD AND PLAYBACK DEVICE WITH FLASH MEMORY by Norris et al. This patent provides a detailed example of the benefits of flash memory in a portable recorder. Most importantly, the parent application provides an operating system which is optimized for use in the handheld record and playback device mentioned above.
====================================================
As I see it, the problem would not be 108 or 445, as both patents reference 774, a voice recorder as prior art....as a possible use for the voice recorder patent 774.
Again ...What came first the chicken (FlashBack) or the egg(774)?
doni
