SILVERSURFER'S POST: RE EDIG'S CONSTRUCTION IS BROADER below:

"Regarding the claim construction of "flash memory". EDIG's construction is broader and the Defendants' term "main memory" doesn't appear anywhere in the '774 claims or specifications. Remembering the Phillips case that taught the world to look at what's written in the 4 corners of the patent, I really like our chances on our construction being adopted by the court.

e.Digital’s Proposed Construction: block erasable non-volatile memory

Defendants’ Proposed Construction:block erasable non-volatile memory that is the main memory of the system"