Defendants’argument is over reaching in that it simply ignores the structure of

claims 1 and 19, and the real import of the amendment. As to the structure of the claim limitation at issue, the limitation states: “control circuitry coupled to the microphone element and including . . . .” (Exh. 1 (‘774 Patent) at cls. 1 and 19(emphasis added)). It is black letter patent law that what follows this format is the bare minimum of elements or structure (in this instance, “circuitry”) that must exist in the claim. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 525 F.3d1200, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“This court has consistently interpreted ‘including’and‘comprising’ to have the same meaning, namely, that the listed elements (i.e., method steps) ar essential but other elements may be added.”) (citing Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,314 F.3d 1313, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also Cias, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It is certainly not an express prohibition against other“circuitry”(such as memory circuitry) being present. Nonetheless, Defendants attempt to narrow the scope of the claim language to preclude any other “memory circuitry” being present. What Defendants miss, however, is that the Applicant did not through this amendment change the “and including”language referenced above to “consisting of.”12 If the Applicants had, then Defendants might have had a point. The Applicants did not.As to the import of the amendment, Defendants make much more of this addition than is argument worthy. It was perfectly appropriate to add the “memory control circuitry” limitation to make clear that there was“control” circuitry interacting with the flash memory. Indeed, that is exactly what the Applicants appear to have done when they changed “a receiving socket electrically coupled to the memory circuitry” to “ a receiving socket electrically coupled to the memory control circuitry.” And while the parties have a disagreement about the proper construction of “memory control circuitry,” there is no disagreement among the parties that this circuitry is at a minimum interacting with the flash memory. (Pl. Op. Br. at 41; D. Op. Br. at 21-22). For these reasons, the addition of “control” to clarify this interaction between the control circuitry and the flash memory module coupled with the receiving socket does not imply or otherwise require that a negative limitation be read into the claims to preclude memory for processing audio other than flash memory. Again, a fulsome analysis of the claims of the ‘774Patent -- the starting point of any claim construction analysis-- exposes the numerous flaws in Defendants’proposed construction.