Agoracom: Small Cap Investment - e.Digital - Re: 737 Claim 5 cancelled, New claim 13-Cguilfor

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

doni

Rank: President [?]

Points: 76204 [?]

Votes: 138 Score: 3.3 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Re: 737 Claim 5 cancelled, New claim 13-Cguilfor - victory on Preamble strategy

in response to

Re: 737 Claim 5 cancelled, New claim 13-Cguilfor - victory on Preamble strategy

sman998

posted on Sep 26, 2012 08:32AM

The claim 5 Preamble recites“is suitable for recording voice messages “ which sets forth a Structural relationship between the “Removable flash memory recording medium chip “ and the“ Hand held device “ that requires the “ Memory integrity test “ be a media test to solve the defectiveMemory problem.

Patent owner respectfully submits that recording language of claim5 as a whole including both the claim preamble and the claim body.

In light of the specification , the term “ Memory integrity test “ most broadly relates to a test of the integrityof memory media and not at all to a test of data stored in the memory.

Patent owner amends claim 5 to explicitly state in the body of claim 5 what patent owner believes already to be the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the preamble claim 5 , which is that the test recited in claim 5 to a media test.

sman....the 7-30 response was an attempt to get the examiner to recognize the preamble language. With that attempt, it was considered not to change claim 5 in any way based on the language.

language:
"The claim 5 Preamble recites“is suitable for recording voice messages “
The examiner would not recognize the above preamble language as a test of the memory prior to recording data.

After the phone conversation, it was considered by the examiner, not to consider the proposed 7-30 preamble language issue.

With that, e.Digital responded to the phone conversation, regarding the situation, with a supplemental response, which you have sited here, with the consideration to amend "media" to the claim.

It now comes down to, is the appeal still in play?

If so, they are going after ...."is suitable for recording voice messages “ as the basis of the appeal.