"e.Digital points to Figures 3 and 4 of the ‘108 patent which reference SRAM(7)to suggest that the sole memory limitation should be construed differently from the construction rendered in Pentax. It also contends that this Court should consider the ‘108 patent prosecution history in construing the term anew.

The judge considered that e.Digital enlarged the claim scope of 774 on re-exam.adding with an end run..I don't see it that way, it's more conforming to the identical considerations of 108.

Thing is....per e.Digital...It also contends that this Court should consider the ‘108 patent prosecution history in construing the term anew.

There's no enlarging of any scope or end running with regard to the considerations of 108.

doni