Replies to post #82240 on e.Digital Corporation (fka EDIG)

[Cassandra]

Correcttion... The source of your unattributed quote from former Chief Judge Meyer: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2004/week30/

The first three parts:
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/07/phillips_v_awh_.html
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/07/de_novo_claim_c.html
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/07/phillips_v_awh__1.html

This sentence needed a bit of clean-up too:

It is interesting that Judge Marcia Kreiger, who issued the Markman ruling in e.Digital's case, was the lower court judge who's ruling was overturned in the Phillips case, which one of e.Digital's lawyers tangentially mentioned during the hearing.

[mrkool]

First - that was not the "source" of my quote, however thank you for assuming that...

The so called dispositive ruling on EDIG is not dispositive at all, as you continue to claim over and over again.

I provided information to you because it appears you have a difficult time understanding the use of concepts in the law, no offense at all intended. I could be wrong, however, you appear to quote dictionaries a lot...

Finally, the ruling from Judge Krieger was very flawed and very inconsistent...the court actually contradicted itself several times and used incorrect technical definitions...

Finally there is case law talking about the impact of a reexamination on claims construction hearings, I read something to that effect a while back.

Anyway sorry you did not find the information useful, hopefully someone else will.