"I personally believe in the fundamental strength of 774 patent but unfortunately the unperfected wording of written patent 20 years ago make it more easy for Examiner to argue with that on the basis of novelty & obviousness."
Same thought here, the claim term "control circuitry for supplying electrical power" was too novel to have been comprehended back then. With that, today the meaning of it is just not anything to consider.
IMO, supplying gets some attention that does not drastically change too much of the original entent.
Can one be too ahead of the times when venturing a patent that at a futuer time examination, language might be problematic in relation to the time of the invention?
example:
"a power source coupled to the control circuitry for supplying electrical power to the device.
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted that: b) the power source is for supplying electrical power to the device, not the control circuitry."
That's not saying he does not understand(IMO, he does), but someone back then might not have comprended the issues as considered.
What does one do if they are more advanced than others when it comes to defining their issues having new methods?
doni
