PART III Excerpts from Doc #303 before coming Markman ruling(3)
in response to : Another look at excerpts from Doc #303 before coming Markman ruling(2)
“Removable” comes directly from the claim language and should be included in the claim construction as advocated by e.Digital.
As explained in e.Digital’s Opening Brief, the phrase proposed for construction “a flash
memory module . . . for storage in nonvolatile form,” describes a single limitation, i.e., “a flash
memory module” that satisfies two necessary functionalities. It (i) “operates as sole memory of
the received processed sound electrical signals” and (ii) “is capable of retaining recorded digital
information for storage in nonvolatile form.” (Exh. 1 (‘774 Patent) at cls. 1 and 19). As
Defendants concede based on their proposed definition of “flash memory module,” the flash
memory module is “removable.” This is clearly the case based on the language in claims 1 and
19 that begins by describing a device for use with removable, interchangeable flash memory and
later describes the features of the flash memory that can be coupled to the socket that receives
the flash memory module.
Accordingly, defining the flash memory module limitation as being
removable should be beyond dispute
.
(Excerpts from Doc303)
AI
