The prior art does not disclose the recited arrangement of the “ Power supply “To the “ Control Circuitry “ to the device.

KIMURA does not disclose “ Control Circuitry” for supplying power to the device.

SHARP does not disclose “ Control Circuitry “ for supplying power to the device.

SUDOH does not disclose “ Control Circuitry” for supplying power to the device.

Other cases similarly required consideration of the specific disclosure.

Dependants claims 2 – 5 ,18 ,19 are allowable at least by virtue of their difference from allowable claim 1.

Other prior art of record fails to remedy the deficiencies of

Kimura , sharp , and sudoh.

Conclusion :

The prior art does not disclose the arrangement of the “ control circuitry for providing electrical power to the device”. A construction of the final limitation of claim 1allowing patent owner construction that the “ power Supply ‘ is unsupported by , and conflicts with the specification. Therefore patent owner construction that the components must be arranged in the following order ;

Arrangement of “power supply “à“control circuitryà

“device “ is the broadest reasonable interpretation.

The control circuitry limitation also requires patent owner construction of the arrangement of the power supplyàcontrol circuitry à device .

As discussed above the arrangement is required to perform the “ record and play back functional operation “as recited by claim 1. Therefore the construction is required both by the disclosure to enable features of the claimed record / play back device. The prior art does not disclose every elements in the “ arrangement as claimed “. Therefore , the requester has not met its burden of showing that the identical invention is disclosed in as complete detail as is claimed.

Patent owner respectfully requests reconsideration of the claims in view of the specification and the argument above.(emphasis by me)