Didn't read the entire brief, but here's a few notes:
device: unduly expansive
Federal Appeals Court applied the classic definition: Integrated circuit device: circuit constructed on a monolithic substrate, commonly called a chip.
Federal Appeals Court applied the classic definition: bus: set of signal lines to which a number of devices are connected and over which information is transferred between devices.
Payne: The invention resided in the use of a bus architecture in which the bus carried all address, data, and control information on a single set of lines with substantially fewer lines bits than the number of bits in a single address
Devices covered by the claims of the patent are limited to devices with an interface to a narrow, multiplexed bus.
Throughout the specification of each of the patents, the ‘device’ is described as having an interface to a narrow, multiplexed bus.
The problem I see is that Hynix wants to reduce the expanse of 'device' such that even RDRAM doesn't fit the patent. Ha. The Rambus patents (in one embodiment) talk about a narrow multiplexed bus that carries data, address and control signals. RDRAM (as well as SDRAM or DDR) do not have that type of bus. Both RDRAM and DDR have a data bus and another multiplexed address/control bus. Two distinct busses. The patent describes just one bus that does all communications.