IMO---very very good....low level plankton opinion of our 22 page brief: (plankton really wants to hear from Doni and Sman to see if the below makes sense to them and their opinion)

BTW..HTC attys should really win a huge award for taking EVERYONE'S focus off of what this patent 774 appears to cover...imo if we get what we want, HUGE

our interpretation of claim one is the ONLY one that allows all of our detailed specifications to work (the claims of what the device can do)....the requester and the uspto office's interpretation would not ALLOW the device to perform all the functions which ARE very clearly detailed in the original patent filing (which btw, seems to include sleep, low power and power off functions...don't know if we are first on this ..but looks like it--wow)--a clear example by our attys....is if we follow uspto analysis...there is NOT enough power to run the speaker....one of our specifications!!

also if i'm reading the prior art arguments...none of them per our attys....have any prior art re: using the power supply to power the "control circuitry" to then power the device...this appears to plankton to be why we have contingency attys............

I don't know what will happen, but in my LOWLY opinion...we should get everything we ask for...(not an engineer remember)...now maybe examiners don't care...or maybe they're bought off, but otherwise...WOW!!!

PS from an EE layperson's perspective....it seems that the difficulty is for everyone to remember what the status was of EE in 1994..ie.....would not be enough power in 1994 to run the speakers w/o our control circuitry power etc.....

PSS...i would guess IMO Nunchi delay is that we wanted to get as far down the road BEFORE we had to detail our genius to the world on this....has to be a relation...all nunchi seemed to stop when reexam was filed last october...i still guess that our new patent filings are related to this....extend IP etc. ALL PLANKTON GUESSES