"However, you may own the common spec and still be "obvious" in the eyes of the administrators appointed by the government."

True,

My thoughts are for claims construction on the only phrase considered by petitioner...."social hierarchy".....the construction of that term, IMVHO, is trumped by a multi patent application.

Construction is not part of the ongoing arguments....possibly for those reasons.

The on going arguments are over general specifications of patents ....e.g... Fig's and spec reference. In directly making physical comparisons between the three patents involved....Milkuzzo/Robarts vs. e.Digital.

For this, it's a matter of petitioner making the board believe that Miluzzo combined with Robarts, in pointing to Figs and spec reference, will do what e.Digital does. Where the witness for the petitioner, apparently, by why of deposition, has a very vague understanding of how Robarts functions.

Anyway, for our next consideration, petitioner gets to respond to e.Digital's last brief, by July 22nd, fore which we will read, the witness for the petitioner has a stellar background in context awareness and presence awareness.....etc.

doni