RE: IMHO it is a GIANT STRETCH to use this reference in combination with anything as prior art or obviousness for the 148. I'm disgusted! Back to hibernation until the response. I hope the TPL response is diplomatic. I would have a hard time being such if I had to respond. - NathenHale

.

I agree. Having 35 years in the electronics business and several patents to my name, IMO, this patent is totally unrelated to the case. Arguing that a wedding ring was prior art would have more merit. I don't see how this prior claim can remain an issue.