This 774 and 108 patent crap is totally ridiculous..

774 implicitly considers RAM...as a product voice recording device

108 explicitly considers RAM...it spells out in detail the RAM issue....as a process within the voice recording device

There should be no way that the appeal not go in e.Digitals direction...for both patents

At minimum 108 should be released as different than 774 if the judges do not recognize 774 and 108 to be of the same intent and purpose.

They go hand in hand ....

This is all so ridiculously bogus with the legal system....it's like having a patent for a car (voice recorder), however, you implicitly detailed the car patent (not spelling out exactly the wheel details) and you have a patent for the wheels that spell out explicitly special details of the wheels.

Amazing

doni