sman...I really hate to stick my nose in this after my prior debacle.....
However, the issue, as I see, is not totally about the noted verbiage...the defendants are considering an indirect issue as it relates to the verbiage…
"Defendants further identify a significant common indefiniteness issue that
relates to multiple terms. Defendants assert that the following terms are indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 on the grounds that the parent application of the ’108 patent
(
U.S. Patent No. 5,787,445) was not properly incorporated by reference by the
’108 patent: (1) creating the primary memory from a non-volatile, long term
storage medium, wherein the primary memory comprises a plurality of blocks in
which the data segments are to be stored; (2) direct manipulation of contiguous and"
===========================================================
Thing is the defendants know exactly what the word issues mean and how e.Digitals methods function. We have to wait to see what the court feels of the statement considered above....
