``Apple case is that there is a user interface that can be observed as being similar. That does not mean there is infringement, but it`s something observable that would make a patent owner investigate further.``

Observing the user interface would not make a patent owner investigate further....they would need more than that.

Any thing could be behind the buttons.

For Creative vs. Apple they`re looking at the hierarchical levels displayed. I have no idea of how may levels the Ipod is capable of...I do not own one.

However, lets say it`s three as described in Creatives patent.

Creative has a manner in which they explain how they achieve the three levels.

e.Digital has a manner in which they explain how they achieve hierarchical ability.

Apple will have to explain how they accomplish it...and it may or may not be indifferent to Creatives methods.

``I`m not looking for technical information as to how MicroOS works.I am trying to find out if there is an observable trait that would indicate that a product may infringe on EDIG`s patents and should be investigated further. It can`t be something as simple as that it uses flash memory.``

And I have explained....physical components up front (and I`m not talking about the user interface here)would signal a possible infringement....the very first component would be the size of the cache or RAM in front of the flash.

a small cache would signal to further investigate ....a large RAM or cache would signal to forget it.

doni