PAGE 6:Mihran talked a lot about computers and RAM and that the microprocessor has very direct access to it. I’m not really sure why he talked so much about computers since that isn’t what our patent is about. One of his slides showed a diagram of a computer (remember this slide…it has relevance later in my report.)Those of us there as observers couldn’t see the PowerPoint slides very well since they were displayed on the parties’ and the judge’s computer monitors.

At one point, Featherstone was about to start a new line of questioning and said, “OK”. Mihran just started talking and after about a minute, Yungwirth objected saying, “Your honor, now the witness is just giving us a narrative and wasn’t even asked a question. Featherstone said, "Yes, I asked a question.” Judge corrected him saying, “OK” isn’t a question and SUSTAINED Yungwirth’s objection. She warned Mihran to only answer questions asked of him.

Next, Mihran had a slide showing a microscopic view of RAM and started talking about it when Yungwirth stood up again and objected to the slide. He argued nowhere in Mihran’s rebuttal brief submitted to the court does it use the language shown in the slide. Judge asked for a copy of the brief and Featherstone asked, “Do you want a copy now?” The judge replied, “I have an objection I need to rule on so yes now.” She asked Featherstone where in the report did it talk about RAM. Featherstone gave her some paragraphs but Yungwirth stood up again and said those paragraph’s didn’t contain the language on the slide. Judge agreed and SUSTAINED the objection.

Mihran talked about the difference between flash memory versus RAM. He explained RAM needs power to retain data and flash does not.He said flash is a type of EE PROM (electrically erasable programmable read only memory).

Mihran put up another slide of RAM and again Yungwirth objected for the same reason as before, that it isn’t referenced in his rebuttal report. Judge again asked for a copy. Smiling, she reminded Featherstone that Mihran’s written report was a rebuttal report to Mr. Maltiel’s report so he’s stuck with what he wrote. He can’t now add to it by way of these slides as this wouldn’t be fair to the Plaintiff. Objection by Yungwirth SUSTAINED. Featherstone moved on.

Mihran started talking about the difference between NOR and NAND flash memory. He said NOR is more like RAM. Yungwirth again objected because it isn’t in Mihran’s report. Judge SUSTAINED. Mihran stopped answering. Time now 2:09pm.

Featherstone asked if an Intel patent was part of the prosecution history of the 774 patent. Mihran said yes and that it’s cited as a reference. Mihran was asked if there’s a reference to NAND memory in the 774 patent. Answered no. Mihran also asked if NAND memory is mentioned in the 774 prosecution history. Answered no.(CONTINUED)