"Determining the meaning of patent claims necessarily requires a judge to break the text of a claim into discrete “elements” or units of text corresponding to the elements or units that comprise the claimed invention, essentially organizing the language of the claims into “chunks” or “quanta” of text. Define an element narrowly—limit it to a single word, say—and you will tend to narrow the resulting patent. By contrast, defining an element broadly tends to broaden the patent."
A. “flash memory” (Claims 1, 2 and 19 of the ‘774 Patent and Claim 5 of the ‘737 Patent)
e.Digital’s Proposed Construction: "block erasable non-volatile memory"
Defendants’ Proposed Construction: "block erasable non-volatile memory that is the main memory of the system "
................
The defendants consideration of "main memory" must/should match that of what the inventor considered....that being a storage element as sole memory....and not a RAM component. This does not seem a hard determination of what the inventor considered. IMO...the judge needs to determine what "main memory" is here.
========================
B. “a flash memory module which operates as sole memory of the received
processed sound electrical signals and is capable of retaining recorded digital
information for storage in nonvolatile form” (Claims 1 and 19 of the ‘774 Patent)
e.Digital’s Proposed Construction: “a removable, interchangeable flash memory storage device that (1) is the only removable memory storage device that receives for storage the processed sound electrical signals, and (2){e.Digital original} sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals: is capable of retaining for storage digital information without the need for ongoing power support”
Defendants’ Proposed Constructions: (1) flash memory module: “a removable, interchangeable flash memory recording medium” and (2) {e.Digital original} sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals: “the only memory of the received processed sound electrical signals, without another memory system such as RAM”
..........
edig:...“a removable, interchangeable flash memory storage device"
defendants:...“a removable, interchangeable flash memory recording medium”
judge to consider...sort the difference between storage and recording....storage would indicate any type data, or a more broad meaning. Recording indicates a specific data having a narrow consideration . A determination of recording needs to be determined and is it being considered to muzzle the inventors intent? Is it a storage element or a specific element?....See claim A determination for " main"(sole) memory.
............
edig:..." is the only removable memory storage device that receives for storage the processed sound electrical signals," (does not preclude the use of other memory)
defendants:...."sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals: the only memory of the received processed sound electrical signals," (precludes the use of other memory)
judge to consider ... defendants do not consider "sole memory" as storage, yet they want to use e.Digital verbiage "sole" where they should be using "main"? They also confuse by utilizing received processed sound electrical signals where their considered argument is that RAM is not utilized for the processing of the sound electrical signals, yet it's pre processed somewhere then received in their consideration. Again...for answer see claim A, determination " main" (sole) memory to be considered.
With regard to "the only" issues, the focus for e.Digital "removable", IMO, leaves the question of other memory types...ie; embedded, open , or having a broad meaning, where defendants want a narrow meaning "the only memory".
............
IMO, the above issues come down to the determination of main(sole) memory of Claim A.
................
edig:..."is capable of retaining for storage digital information without the need for ongoing power support”
defendants:..."without another memory system such as RAM”
defendants phrase implemented to support the definition of "main memory" in the context of RAM and how the flash is to be recognized.....the flash considered to be a RAM component.
It all comes down to claim A and a determination of "main (sole) memory"....Will she consider as the inventor considered...storage, or as the defendants do in the context of RAM?
FWIW
AI
