For 774 it was an implicit issue, with regard to one of ordinary skill in the art.

For 108 it was an explicit issue , with regard to one of ordinary skill in the art.

For the presiding judge, he identifies with neither, with regard to one of ordinary skill in the art.

One of ordinary skill in the art was the initial argument in the Colorado case. It came down to one of ordinary skill in the art could not relate to the implicit considerations.

Now that the implicit considerations of 774 have been made explicit....the judge does not relate.

And he considers nothing of the explicit considerations of 108, which the Colorado judge might have considered as more apparent for one of ordinary skill in the art, had 108 been involved in the Colorado issue.

Current judges comments of the Colorado case in that regard: " Moreover, while the Pentax court considered the
use of RAM to support microprocessor applications as e.Digital suggests, it expressly rejected the argument. (Defs’ Ex. 5 at 13-15.) e.Digital’s contention that it could broaden the Pentax claim construction through reexamination, is foreclosed by 35 U.S.C. Section 305 (prohibiting enlarging claim scope in reexamination) and In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (reexamination cannot serve as an “end run” around district court claim construction).

As 108 and 774, with regard to this consideration are identical (per judges comment), the SRAM explicitly identified in the 108 has moved from an implicit issue to explicit issue in the 774 patent on re-exam..IMVHO..there is no end run around anything....and there is no enlarging of claim scope.

With that,

"The court in Pentax was asked to construe the phrase “a flash memory module which
operates as sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals” '

The court was asked to construe more than that phrase of the claim term in question. The court was ask to construe the full claim term by e.Digital.
doni