Talk about a Weak Argument... in my opinion, the defendants in the Appeal for Collateral eStoppel are grasping at straws trying to prove SRAM is not connected to the DSP in Patent 108.... The very presence of SRAM (2 places) SRAM (data) SRAM (program) in the diagram is proof enough. The defendant is trying to say that SRAM does not interface with the DSP...... much less engages with SRAM as sound signals travel through the codec and DSP. Unlike the '774 re-exam when the SRAM diagram was added, the fig 3 in '108 is the original diagram with SRAM ever present. It's marked plan as day.

* The first diagram is the snapshot taken from the defendants argument.

* The second diagram is the actual fig 3. in the patent that shows