you have to go back and read the CE ruling.

"Did the judge not throw 108 in with 774 in error because 108 was never litigated at CO?'

108 was utilized in e.Digitals opposition to the CE motion by defendants as a support issue for explanations of 774 and the need for RAM.

108 is a patent detailed nearly identical to 774, the RAM issue is explicit in detail...where for 774 prior to re-exam, the RAM issue is implicit , normally expected to be present by one of ordinary skill in the art and not being specifically detailed. Post re-exam 774 the RAM issue is now explicit.

I don't know about the judge being "in error" however, he put 108 under the CE ruling and it was not a Colorado ruled issue. With that, IMO, e.Digital would have to get a dis-positive ruling on both to appeal the CE.

The judge took part of e.Digitals settlement negation power by taking 108 off the table for defendants that have 108 as an infringement issue.

With that, IMO, defendants that do not have 108 as an infringement issue, should not be allowed to appeal the CE....

The RAM issue is what the Colorado judge issued her ruling based on the patent phrase regarding the sole memory considerations. e.Digital wants to litigate the sole memory issues based now on the re-exam considerations.

The judge, basically considers the RAM issue not to be a proper stance for these cases, because, he figures the re-exam was not based on the sole memory issue...but the power source connected to control circuitry issue.

Thing is, it was e.Digitals choice to have other details considered for re-exam other than the control circuitry issue...with that, pursued them on its own accord and was approved for those amendments by the USPTO to be proper.

doni