Thanks for the invite Doc,,,

Anyway , for all......what the basic problem is for prior art. If there's any hint of any type reclamation of memory space, wear-leveling involved for the IP, where data is written from flash to outside resource ....eg RAM ....the argument is over.

This is a condition of BAN referenced and detailed as a typical IP having this type problem for data management.

It doesn't matter what type file system there may be involved for the IP residing over a reclamation process....there is no comparison to Daberko/Davis.

What Daberko and Davise devised, the reclamation, wear-leveling, and data management .....do not move any data outside the flash.

The Mills patent and the Kruger patent both detail reclamation or data management with a process outside the memory.

With that problem they cannot lace prior art claims into the Daberko and Davis claim terms...As details of prior art, file system, reclamation and wear leveling, all have to be managed in unison.

That combined detail will deflate prior IP issues.

doni