Message: FWIW
First,The patent owner resort to the specification , which enlightens us as to the meaning of the propositional phrase “ for supplying electrical power to the device “.
The specification teaches that “ for supplying “ modifies the word“control circuitry “ and therefore , requires that the “ control circuitry ‘ supply “ electrical power to the device “.
Second, The patent owner urges that the claim itself requires the above interpretation As requested by examiner Tran, the patent owner provides a declaration defining “regulated components “in view of the teaching of the “774” patent. A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted “Regulated Components “to be components that are supplied with “Electrical Power” that has the characteristic of being a defined voltage that is held constant during normal operation.
Third , The patent owner urges that the above interpretation of the phrase “ for supply electrical power to the device”.Claim 1 recites ,”performing record and playback functional operations with respect to [……..] regulated components”. The specification enlightens us by explaining that this limitation involves “supplying electrical power “ thus , the “control circuitry” limitation also requires in interpretation of the phrase “for supplying electrical power to the device” as modifying the term “control circuitry” supply “electrical power to the device”.
Patent owner respectfully submits that claim1 – 5 and ,18 and 19 which currently stand rejected, are in condition for allowance , in light of these remarks and supporting declaration.
As explained in the previously submitted response , the prior art does not disclose a “Power supply coupled to the control circuitry for supply power to the device” as recited by claim 1.
Declaration of Mark Gurries as supplemental response 1,19,2012.
18 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply