You stated:...

"I hope we will get the same conclusion for e.DIGITAL claims construction based on above case law that has been already emphasized and pointed to the judge during Markman Hearing"...

May I respectfully suggest that you drop the words "I hope", and begin your sentence as follows:..

"We will get the same conclusion for e.Digital claims construction based on the PHILLIPS vs. AWAH appellate decision, which is the controlling authority on issues presented to Judge KRIEGER for a decision."...

In fact, as it turned out, the singular reason for DM filing the Round II in DENVER Federal Court was the fact that PHILLIPS case, (which is fast being recognized as a controlling authority in claim construtruction), was indeed a case tried in Judge Krieger's Court and she acknowledged full understanding of the case and its ruling.(see, the discourse between the Judge and the attoneys at the end of Markman Hearing as reported by Silversurfer.)...

No sir; "Hope", is not good enough. It denotes an element of chance. There is no CHANCE Judge KREIGER will IGNORE the PHILLIPS case.

And if she abides by the ruling in PHILLIPS case then she will rule for EDIG...

Please note I did not say she SHALL rule for EDIG. However, logic demands that she rule for EDIG if she follows the accepted norms of practice of law that controlling precedents of Appellate Courts decisions are to be followed by lower courts until the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise...

GLTA...

Gil...