The courts consideration has given a leg up on what DM is after....and DM knows it.

DM does not want anything from the court but what it got.

The issues of claim 1 and claim 19, as I see it, are closer together with the way the court ruled. The issues are not split between claim 1 and 19 as of the courts ruling. The court ruled on a specific phrase of claim 1 and 19....and now that ruling does exactly what e.Digital and DM want.....it brings them together.

I know this is going to seem so crazy to you all, but I see the individual pieces of what the court considers....and it did not specify that different pieces be designated to claim 1 or 19 but make them the same. What is originally detailed of claim 19 is now regulated to claim 1....and that that was originally detailed of claim 1 is now regulated to claim 19.

Minister, I know you feel the courts rendering was a complete miss, and though I'm not of the legal profession, I see things differently.

The analog and digital field of use issues are considered in the rendering and they are not specific to claim 1 or 19 but cast overall by the court in adopting the originally publish phrase and pushing both into the phrase.

I hear the comments of the SMH and I understand, but I see other issues as well.

doni