From page 192 of Markman transcript:

THE COURT: No. Thank you.

At the beginning of today's hearing, I asked what

evidence the parties agreed that the Court should be

considering. I believe all of the exhibits that were

identified have been received, 1, 2, 3, 3A, B, C, and 4. I

asked which terms the parties desired the Court to construe in

hierarchy, and all the evidence and argument has pertained to

two terms: "flash memory" and "flash memory module which

1operates as sole memory of the received processed sound

1electrical signals and is capable of retaining recorded digital

information for storage in nonvolatile form."

Does that mean that none of the remaining terms that

were originally at issue need to be construed?

MR. JAMESON: Your Honor, from e.Digital's perspective --

THE COURT: Would you speak into the microphone.

MR. JAMESON: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. JAMESON: Your Honor, e.Digital is willing to

proceed with the plain, ordinary meaning of the remainder of

the claim terms as would be understood by one of ordinary skill

in the art.

Obviously if the defendants disagree with that, then

the constructions that we have offered earlier are the

constructions that we think are the right constructions of

those claim terms.