" If things are so clear cut, why then are we still out in the cold?"

I have no idea, however, I have come to a complete unequivocal conclusion that the court understands the issues fully, and has avoided the digital issues for whatever(?) reason.

I also consider the comments of its lack of intellect on the subject matter, and its dis-positive comments relating to, " How can a judge have five months to rule on two aspects and then "rule" on only one part of one part?", as you put it, .....to be unprofessional.

Because what you state is dead on, this patent can not be opinionated under a one half condition of one claim term only.

The A and B terms relate to each other. The court ruled on B....and did not consider but one half of B....with that, made notion of it being dis-positive to e.Digital.....where this one half condition in itself is not a dis-positive issue.....the lack of digital considerations make the opinion more narrowly construed... IMO, nothing is dis-positive....there is just a lack of consideration.

The added comments are not necessary of half of an opinion.....the directive is all that was necessary.

IMO, the comments were for the public....because counsel for defendants or the plaintiff understand the issues completely and what the court is considering.

doni