Doni, I also agree that what the examiner expressed in the interview, especially what you have noted below is troubling, but hopefully the written statement will change his mind. Lets keep fingers crossed.
"Examiner Tran contended that the rejections of claims 1-5, 18 and 19, as recited in the last Office action mailed 09/20/2011, are maintained because the above-identified prior art teaches each and every claimed elements and limitations recited in the claims; 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."
