Replies to post #82245 on e.Digital Corporation (fka EDIG)

[Neverending]

mrkool- you are doing a fine job educating those on the board not familiar with the finer points of the law with regards to intellectual property. It helps clear up the misunderstanding that occur and lead to the false conclusion that the previous Colorado markman ruling will have any effect on this case. Thanks again for pointing out how flawed that ruling was and how the reexamination wiped the slate clean for EDIG thus giving us a fresh start. That Judge in Colorado Kreiger was a dope. Her ruling made no sense and anybody who read it was left scratching their heads.

[LGJ]

United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a Reexamination Certificate for the ’774 patent

Cassandra, you quoted the following:

Yes, e.Digital amended the '774 patent to overcome the finding of invalidity due to prior art. They tried to reintroduce RAM through a back door in the amendments, but I'm not sure it will work. The claim of flash memory being the sole memory remains. If collateral estoppel is not applied and a new claim construction process is held, I expect that a new construction of key claims would result also result in the exclusion of RAM in '774.

First of all, On August 14, 2012 (more than a year after issuance of Judge Krieger’s Markman Order and almost a year after the Colorado case was closed), the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a Reexamination Certificate for the ’774 patent, canceling the claims that Judge Krieger construed and adding new independent claims 33 and 34 together with several new dependent claims.

Secondly, Exclusion of RAM? 774 has always had RAM... Mr. Norris quoted the following in his testimony: “by the fact that there’s DSP in there and other functionality, [like a] microprocessor, it’s obvious to anyone with freshman knowledge of electronics, you’ve got RAM.”

FRESHMAN KNOWLEDGE of ELECTRONICS, YOU'VE GOT RAM

First, he [sic] contends that any person skilled in the art would implicitly understand, based on the computational tasks performed by the device, that RAM would be required: as Mr. Norris put it, “by the fact that there’s DSP in there and other functionality, [like a] microprocessor, it’s obvious to anyone with freshman knowledge of electronics, you’ve got RAM.” In other words, the Plaintiff’s position is that RAM is an indispensable component of a device engaging in these types of microprocessor-based computations, and that specifically referencing the presence of RAM in the patent would be superfluous.

(Defendants’ Exhibit 5 at pp. 14-15.) (Emphasis added.)



Here's the New Diagram of Patent 774 and RAM is ever PRESENT, it's listed under Micro Processor so it can not be misconstrued as to its presence, there is NO BACKDOOR introduction, it's as straight-forward as can be.