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: US Court of Appeals Docket #14-1019 * UPDATE * 02/12/2014
If the defense says there is no difference between 108 and 774 in this Docket and the decison by Judge Krieger in Colorado hinged on the explicit existance of RAM in 774 which was not specified in the original patent but assumed implicitly, then the defense just admitted in writing that 774 has RAM (confirmed in patent re-exam) because as Doni said it is written in 108 explicitly. Correct or no?
