Believe me I want to believe the ruling was flawed I told you I have poured a lot of my life and wealth into this and it killed me. The original examiner did not feel simply using flash memory as the final repository of data was enough as it would be "obvious" to substitute flash for a cassette of other media. Norris then said he was "aware of no prior art that did not use another memory system such as RAM" and he amended his claims saying that flash would be the "sole memory" used in his device. Read the 774 non final rejection from when the patent was applied for. I was hoping that EDIG used RAM in a different way than the prior art did and that was how I justified the investment in EDIG. That is how our research should proceed. How is RAM used differently by EDIG than Kimura, Sharp of Schroder.
mrkool I hear you and understand your points its just that the law is what judges say it is and if Duane Morris saw flaws in the judges reasoning wouldnt they have appealed the ruling? The judge did seem to read limitations into the patent but it was based on the seemingly plain language of the examiner interview with Norris. I would only buy back into this fiasco after confirmation that Duane Morris signs back on on contingency. If edig has to go shopping for another IP law firm I would say that speaks poorly for the patent monetization efforts.
Mrkool. I disagree and I read her ruling several times. Also I read what I could of the prosecution history which is where the limitations came from. In those comments it was stated numerous times and qualified that Flash was the memory and no ram was used and they were indeed indicating it as MIAN MEMORY which you should no is used for computational etc. So I completely disagree with you and it's all documented. I raised those very issue well before judge Krieger made her ruling. I posted several times the numerous times woody stated in different ways NO RAM ..flash in lieu of ram. We know of no other device that uses flash as main memory in lieu of ram etc. There is no conflict in her ruling.
I also had a problem with the processed sound signals until I read her explanation. Keep in mind this was one of several statements she used to support her ruling no ram. She said Woody became his own lexicographer in this. He used processed sounds only up to tbefore the digitized state. After that every time he talked about audio he claimed Data and digital this. He never used the term processed sound after it was digitized. So clearly if flash was the only memory to receive the processed sound no ram could be used to digitize the audio and then prepare it and send it to flash for storage. Processing the sound was woody,s own claim and it was basically done to get the analog audio ready for digitizing. After that it's not processed sound as woody never referred to it as such after that. Again it was digitalmdata etc. she used this as just one example of proof for ruling. There were other too she used.
And you are also wrong. The defendants did raise the issue of the processed sounds. I believe it was part of the contested claims and i also believe it was part of the hearing before the ruling.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
