"interpretation of the power supply - Control Circuitry is a stretch from what was stated in the original claims, and he just doesn't buy into it."

And where are your thoughts with regard to it? It's not a matter of buying into anything.

As of this re-exam.....the claims were not altered or ammended in any way....other than getting an understanding of what is there....and how things function.

The examiner does not understand the linage of it, how it fits with the other terms of claims 1 and 19, or defined in the body of the patent, which, IMO, are clear.

A power source coupled to the control circuitry for supplying electrical power to the device.

It was written many years ago now.....why would it be necessary to write it that way if it was to be simply interperted as he and the defendant feel?

Example...

"By resorting to the disclosure, and by comparing the arrangements recited in the claim, e.g., the arrangements recited in the last two claim limitations of claim 1, which are repeated below:

a speaker coupled to the control circuitry for playback of recorded digital information; and

a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted that: a) the speaker is for playing back of recorded digital information, not the control circuitry; and b) the power source is for supplying electrical power to the device, not the control circuitry."

That's his thought, however there's a reason that many years ago control circuitry for supplying electrical power was composed in that fashion and he refuses to identify why....

doni