"IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PATENTS WERE GRANTED, CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS WERE FOUND IN OUR FAVOR AND THE ONLY THING LEFT ARE THOSE CHALLENGES....FROM ALL THAT YOU HAVE SAID IN THE PAST IT LOOKS AS IF EDig STANDS A PRETTY GOOD CHANCE AT PREVAILING.

AM I WRONG? OR HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND???"

We have, as you state, a good standing with the judicial and we have published patents. For the claims construction issues of the judicial....they are, IMVHO, BRI....with that, they should be in line with the PTAB pushing for BRI, or

Broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) According to Coalition for 21st Century

The coalition is nominally listed in the material sman presented.....lol ...and that is what I was picking on..

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

That aside, e.Digitals IPR is not splitting hairs over BRI and is on the back burner if claims construction is a necessary process of the PTAB proceedings..

The PTAB did not see claims construction necessary, e.Digital agrees with that, however, e.Digital emphatically disagrees with the proposed constructions of the petitioner.

e.Digitals problems are getting over a different hump....that being the challenges of prior art.

The combination of Robarts (MSFT) and Milluzo (Dartmouth College)....and the professional wisdom of Williams regarding them.

Looks good to me, however, I have no idea how the PTAB will access the prior art after reading Purcell's considerations.

We wait to see how the PTAB accesses the Williams issues and how that equates to Robarts/Milluzo.

doni