If things go a little off kilter with the Markman language that can be smoothed over as a debatable issue in going to a trial.....

Thing is, the court should not limit the use ability of the patent claims to the defendants consideration.

Just as the previous judge emphasized in the 108 case...

The patent specifications having limited teachings ( as one could not realistically spell out every possible variation of use ) should not be driven verbatim into the claim term meanings.

....a patent owner must detail in some variation what the invention does. However, that limited demonstration should not be considered the only use of the invention.

The limitations of specifications should not be limited to the claim terms.

With that, skreal, I withdraw a bit of my commentary toward you....Markman is important.

However, I see the IPR issues more important, as they can end all, where the Markman will not, but it needs to be on target for e.Digital to have a full use.

If e.Digital gets full use ,great, but it still has to face the prior art issues.

With that, this is my last post on this subject...GLTA

doni