<He agrees with others who have posted bere that the T3 probably won the 890.>

I wonder why he said probably and not definitely? Perhaps it depends on how one defines loss? Yes, the construction eliminates conventional DMA. The way the claim is written, specifying DMA cpu, was there much hope of expanding the claim's scope? Probably not. Why was it an issue?

IMHO, this has more to do with the appropriateness of importing stuff from the specification, as the plaintiffs attempted to do, only to our disadvantage. There is verbage in the specification that would seem to cover conventional DMAs as well as DMAs with cpu. Were we simply making a point about the inappropriateness of importing from the specification to either expand or narrow the scope of a claim?

How big of a part does conventional DMA play in the high growth electronics areas of today? Is there is a relationship to the growth of multiple core chips and usage of DMA with cpu? Do all multi-core chips infringe? I'm not an EE, but I think these are appropriate questions to be asking as it relates to the 890.

Opty