emit, we do not have a full picture of what is considered by the examiner, other than this..

"particularly, the limitation "a power source coupled to the control circuitry for supplying electrical power to the device", as recited in each of the base claims 1 and 19, comprises functional language, which requires no specific "coupling", and/or no specific structural arrangement."

That, that is highlighted in red, is a phrase considered by the examiner of claim 1 and 19 to have a short falling in description....as that phrase has similarity to prior art. What ever else is on his mind is anyone's guess.

What Gurries explains in covering that phrase, is how the VCC and VPP connections are made through to the removable flash socket,(particularly claim 1 and 19) and how they are energized from the micro-controller through the coupling of MOSFET's in relay actions. What e.Digital does, for the most part, through two separately detailed circuits, one for the micro-controller/MOSFET 64,65,66 orchestration, along with upfront voltage conditioning... DC to DC 5V for the Micro-controller, ......relay a separate power source to periphery MOSFET elements.... such as a second DC to DC for the VPP. Prior art does not do this.

The two circuits are independent and the MOSFET's working in unison with the micro-controller can relay through multi-duty considerations, depending on the signal from the Micro-controller.

Suggest you read 774 patent at 8:59 on a bit(true signal compared to prior art) ....and 9:40 on a bit(transmitting circuitry...alternating write and hold patterns)

I guess the trick now is, how do they fit all that coupling information into that questionable phrase in making it read differently than prior art?....lol

IMO, what our boy is doing for the record, he's reinforcing a lot of issues beyond what the examiner wants.....fine with me.....the more the better.....and it's not Wood to be challanged in the future.

a lot going into this thing for sure.

doni