As I see it.....is it not ruling on the balance of the phrase for 774....., where, IMVHO, "digital information" relates to 737.

IMO, the court ruling on the 737 issue for claim term 5 and "flash memory" may, or may not get directly related back to the balance of the phrase of 774....?

The court has to be able to place its ruling of 737(claim term 5 and "flash memory") directly in its ruling of 774. It would have to modify its origional ruling of 774 to include the balance of the full phrase. Will the court be resigned if it gets to a ruling prior to settlements?

"a flash memory module which operates as sole memory of the[2] received processed sound electrical signals[1] and is capable of retaining recorded digital information for storage in nonvolatile form;[?]

It's ruled on the field of use issues....analog/digital...it now has to consider anchoring them together for the novelty of the invention with regard to "flash memory"....that said....for both memory types of claims 1 and 19

doni