Appeal for this, Again and ob these grounds... of course, right?

Anybody know if appeal would/could play-ouy before the 3-14 Apple Markman?

''However, the reexamination history, which was not available to Judge Krieger, clearly shows that the microprocessor of the new claim 33 utilizes RAM.(See Exhibit 5 to Hedrick Decl. and Exhibits D through H thereto.) Consistent therewith, the specifications of the ’774 patent disclose that the microprocessor of the claimed invention of the ’774 patent “drive[s] all system components.” (Id. At 5:58-59.) (Emphasis added.) Therefore, at least one possible interpretation of the reexamination history shown above is that the microprocessor utilizes RAM while engaging the CODEC, DSP, memory control functions, and storing data. (See also Defendants’ Exhibit 1 (’774 patent) at 5:33-39 (disclosing the DSP and CODEC are coupled to control circuitry 21, which also contains the microprocessor), 5:58-6:15 (CODEC and DSP are coupled to the microprocessor), Figs. 1-2 (control circuitry 21 includes analog-to-digital conversion (CODEC), memory circuitry, control logic, signal processing circuitry, playback circuitry and microprocessor.)

Thus, the explicit introduction of RAM on reexamination requires new consideration of the very heart of Judge Krieger’s analysis. Judge Krieger, however, simply did not have this reexamination history and therefore could not have considered it in making her determinations – something that this court has the obligation to do if it undertakes to construe the claims. Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion must be denied since new claims, reexamination history and other evidence now exists that Judge Krieger did not have the opportunity to consider when she construed the terms of old claims 1 and 19''

emit...