Yes,  there was other prior art issues to over come.

The way this worked out. In e.Digitals very first dissertation to the IPR petition, to be, or not to be instituted,  they argued very thoroughly, over 40 pages,  of other prior art issues challenged....and gave very little argument to the Miluzzo/Roberts issues... like 6 pages of vague. The prior art issues ventured where to base the IPR on being instituted or not being institute.

On their allowed , lets say,  more formal response to the IPR, after it was decided to institute based on the above first dissertation.  The PTAB then focused on the Miluzzo/Roberts issues for the formal IPR  and paid no never mind to the previous prior art issues. With that, it seemed, to me anyway,  e.Digital was being crafty in some fashion on being vague on Miluzzo/Roberts(MFST) issues.

Miluzzo/Roberts then became the main formal focus,  where I read e.Digitals arguments along with the Nettle information a long time back.... It all seemed through and strongly argued.....

With all the back and fourth... the civil case settled and the IPR terminated on that civil settlement.

With that, I'm thoroughly ... Miluzzo--ed out....until something happens.

All the legal posturing is getting old... whatever is happening.

doni