in a nut shell...if you have read the last USPTO comments and the subsequent additional comments of e.Digitals attorneys....

The examiner does not consider that the micro-controller item 21 to be the "control circuitry", however, the patent explains in detail "control circuitry 21" in detail.

Micro-controller = control circuitry..... with regard to how the patent is published....e.Digitals attorneys pointed that out....where the examiner commented...

"USPTO Examiner is required to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure; and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. Therefore, said claim terms have been given their "plain meaning" as discussed in the prior Office action."

Examiner Tran contended that the rejections recited in the prior Office action mailed 09/20/2011 are maintained. Agreed that PO's declaration may be used to define its position and/or to clarify the issues.

We are waiting for a determination of what the control circuitry is ....as it relates to being recited in 1 and 19...

FWIW

doni