Never & Heybrad - When I wrote this I reviewed the case on the surface for errors – errors I hoped to find without researching the technology at all –
I found errors on the face of the opinion – understand what the court produces is a legal document - (that is law), and must be analyzed as such –
Here is the old message created a while back analyzing this case -
In the process of tearing apart a Judge’s order or ruling, (when it is poor), there are several tactics that can be used effectively - the first thing to do is find the Judge contradicting herself anywhere in the opinion and use that for further research.
This is where the research comes in by the person reviewing the opinion – after I find a contradiction I research terms like RAM, (random access memory), find out the numerous ways it can be defined and how the inventor used it and how the Patent Office accepted the use of that term in the patent application taking into consideration all of the patent law etc…
In other words keep hammering away at the Judge’s opinion if possible…Please note it is important to read EVERY word and EVERY sentence very carefully, AS WRITTEN, not interpreting the words or assuming intent etc…
Why is this important? Because what the Judge says or writes - is law – thus it must be logical, clear and NOT contradict itself. If a Judge’s opinion contradicts itself in even a ‘medium’ sized way - then there is a huge issue that must be resolved and usually means the author, (or the Judge made a mistake).
So with that in mind for this first lesson, let’s see if MK – Federal District Court Judge “extraordinaire” contradicted herself anywhere in the opinion –
The court stated as fact and law - as follows:
“In July 1995, Elwood Norris, the inventor of the Plaintiff’s device, attended an interview with the USPTO Examiner to address the rejection. (Mr. Norris was assisted by his counsel at this interview.) The parties have submitted a one-page Examiner Interview Summary Record from this meeting that indicates that Mr. Norris demonstrated how his product worked, that the participants discussed the Schroder patent and dictionary issues, and that an agreement was reached – namely, “Applicant will amend claims to include limitation that will expressly state that the flash memory module is the sole memory to store the received processed sound electrical signal.” The memorandum acknowledged that “Examiner agreed that such a limitation would overcome Schroder.”
Thus this is what MK MUST consider because 1) the Patent Office stated that such a limitation should overcome the Schroder patent, and 2) because SHE SAID IT IN THE DECISION ITSELF – OOPPS!!
So did MK contradict herself with the following statements?
Let’s see –
On page 13 MK states as follows – “By advising the USPTO that he intended to amend Claim 1 to be read to cover a device that “uses flash memory as its main memory,” Mr. Norris indicated to those skilled in the art that the device he was claiming was one in which flash memory, not RAM, was the exclusive memory used by the device for both computational work by the microprocessor and for final storage of the finished data…”
No Norris did not claim that, (as stated above by the Patent Office and by the Judge) – in other words, this is an example of the Judge contradicting herself – again here is what was stated “Applicant will amend claims to include limitation that will expressly state that the flash memory module is the sole memory to store the received processed sound electrical signal.”
THERE IS NO LANGUAGE HERE TALKING ABOUT COMPUTATIONS OR COMPUTATIONAL ANYTHING AT ALL – WTF IS THIS JUDGE TALKING ABOUT? SHE IS MAKING IT UP AS SHE DOES AS FOLLOWS:
“Although the parties have focused their attention on the phrase “sole memory” in the disputed language, it appears to the Court that the true dispute between the parties is over the phrase “received processed sound.” The Plaintiff’s apparent construction of this phrase is that it refers only to “fully processed sound” data, while the Defendants’ construction of the phrase is that it refers to “partially processed sound” data, as well as the finished product.”
HUH???? WTF is this interpretation – where did the “Court” get this crap from? This is NOT what this Judge quoted above as taken from the Patent Office and NOT what the PARTIES TO THIS CASE WERE ARGUING. IT IS THE JUDEGE’S SMARMY WAY OF ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT THE ARGUMENTS AND THEN IMPOSE HER OWN THOUGHTS ON THIS TECHNOLOGY…
Conclusion – you do not need to read this case over too many times to understand it was written poorly…nor do you need to debate her logic or language much – it does not exist. This conclusion came after an initial reading of this case. On the overall the case is very poorly written and not logical. It throws technical terms around loosely like RAM – that can be defined several ways without sticking to the language at issue and quoted by the court itself. Note this is only the beginning of how to tear apart a poorly written opinion – it gets detailed from here…LOL
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
