Iam...I'm a little If-fy on that ....

sman...pondering your recent post on how important claims construction is for IPR reviews, be the PTAB do it or the civil court do it...I'm still trying to figure why a claims ruling is important....for this case.

In anyevent, it's done and over with for whatever worth it does lend for an IPR review.

My question is, for this case...what difference does it make regarding the limitations of a patents use?

As an example... “provide/provides/ providing differing levels of information” :(to mean) “send/ sends/sending information in varying levels of granularity” (construed to be limited to sending only).

We could have been limited to the above (construed to be limited to sending only), however, the patent would still be of value to that limitation..... Where this issue may not be considered a basic mechanism.

Where the basic mechanisms, in general, challenged in the claims construction, if they leaned more to the defendant, would still be basic mechanisms in a limited fashion.

In a limited fashion or a more broad fashion what difference would that make when comparing the basic mechanism process, in general, to Prior art?

IMO, the prior art has the generalities or it does not...and the limitations on the generalities should not matter. IMO, not for this case anyway.

Where the issues that the petitioner exhibits (3) as prior art, should they each now be subject to the AIA IPR process of validity in the capacity that e.Digital represents?

FWIW

doni