SP....

IPR instituted .... MILUZZO IN VIEW OF ROBARTS .....

"Petitioner proposes interpreting “social template,” “social hierarchy,”

and “level of [a] social hierarchy.” Pet. 6–9. Patent Owner responds that

claim construction is “irrelevant at this stage.” Prelim. Resp. 6.

For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that an express

construction of any term is not necessary.'

These issues of the 522 are the same issues that were detailed in the civil action. I see them,IMO, as the basic collection and process engines. If they are found un-patent able I do not know how they effect the balance of patents.

e.Digital, preliminarily, seems to be questioning, what appears to be, published generality and description for both of the prior art issues. Lets say, recipes without ingredients of structure.

We have to wait on e.Digital to forward more indepth arguments of the generalities considered in preliminary response regarding both issues used as prior art.

With that, I'm done to let them sort it out.

I'm as tired of it all as anyone else.

doni