"Two of our patents are in the process of being reexamined by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Favorable determinations from the reexamination could bolster our licensing and unfavorable determination could adversely affect our ability to monetize our patent portfolio. We expect the reexamination process to be complete in approximTwo of our patents are in the process of being reexamined by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). "

Is there a typo there, or a redundancy?

Anyway...

It's amazing how the verbiage of a patent can be twisted.....when things seem to be so straightforward.

The only reason we are having the problem is simple enough...

The meaning of the word "module" is just not decisive enough to tie into the word removable for claim 1 and 19...regarding "flash memory" as far as the court was concerned..Which by obvious design of the drawings and other descriptive considerations the indication for removable of something is overwhelming.

There are two issues at hand, "removable" and e.Digitals proposed construction for it, and what exactly the removable is capable of.

I hope the USPTO, in reviewing both the plaintiffs and defendants claims construction, realize that the defendants had considered "Recording medium"(the issue they wanted the court to recognize only) doesn't even have a "module" designation , was modified to consider it a "module", where it further recognized "module" as a "removable" issue.

3. Defendants’ Proposed Constructions: (1) flash memory module: “a removable, interchangeable flash memory "recording medium” and (2) sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals: “the only memory of the received processed sound electrical signals, without another memory system such as RAM”

RE: claim 19 "recording medium"

"a receiving socket electrically coupled to the memory control circuitry and configured for electrical coupling with a recording medium which is capable of retaining recorded digital information for storage;"

There's a reason defendants took that approach. IMO, they wanted embedded memory issues not considered.....and wanted "recording medium" to be of one consideration....and overly elaborated to that effect.

Something that the court did not consider. As it ruled on "flash memory module" when both parties constructed claims that recognized some form of "removable" relating to claims 1 and 19.

FWIW
doni