"But yet we're stuck on the definition of 'main memory' "

Not yet, that claim is not part of this case....

The defendants are trying to make that issue part of their claims construction considerations by changing the meanings associated with the removable memory.

That claim is part of 445....and 445 is not part of this case......445 is a stand alone issue.

Review the ancestry of the patents on the USPTO. You can review that information through the "PAIR" and application status.

Actual ability aside, a lot more thought has gone into these patents than most consider.

doni