I always thought that the heart of the 148 this part:

<said memory using a greater area of said single substrate than said processing unit, said memory further using a majority of a total area of said single substrate. >

Which is why defendants wanted total area construed as to include top and bottom. And they lost that issue.

Questions

Is that assumption correct? And is the USPTO making an admission on page 4 where they say that "Talbot 581 does not expressly state " etc, which basically says this part of the claim is OK? TIA Opty