"And she could not see the uiquenss of what EDIG had done."

She understood that the device had the ability of analog storage and digital storage..or at least she identified that there was something there surrounding it...There is a uniqueness in the ability to manage those two entirely different considerations. And as I read her rendering she kind of gave consideration to that ability.

If we are positive on the current prosecution of the patent....there will be on the record very understandable issues that any court will understand. The "ambiguities" , as Fred put it, have been removed.

Now we have to get past the question of the power supply comparison to the Sharp prior art.

Defendants...propose....the power supply supplies power to the device.

e.Digital ....insists .....that the "control circuitry" supplies power to the device issues.....and it does. The device will not function without the control circuitry allowing the power source to flow to device issues.

That said, the micro-processor and the MOSFETs inclusive (item 21 of the patent) ARE the "control circuitry" as simple as that sounds....it's very, very, very!!!!.....important to understand what that means.

The micro-processor has the ability to control its own power sources(note plural) through the "control circuitry". There's a charge pump circuit that is utilized (amoung other power source controlled issues), switched on and off by the control circuitry, that brings the battery power 3v up to 5v operation for the Micro processor. That power supply (source)will not happen unless the control circuitry allows it to.

doni