<< It was only after Burst received initial rejections, and then changed patent attorneys, that the phrase “time compressed representation” and the related phrases “associated burst time period” and “shorter than a real time representation” were introduced into the Burst patents. >>

He admits "the original claims of the Burst patent applications contained claims to
data compression, as well as claims describing faster-than-real-time...," but argues that "... Burst abandoned its original data compression claims..." in order to get around the prior art of the Izeki patent, which the patent examiner kept pointing to in rejecting Burst's claims. His whole argument rests on the words "not the equivalent" in the Burst statement to the patent examiner. Powers:

<< In response to the examiner’s rejection, Burst declared: "While Izeki et al. mentions data compression as one type of conversion process, this is NOT THE EQUIVALENT by any means of applicant’s (Burst’s) specifically claimed time compression." >>

Well, what was the purpose of Burst's statement to the examiner? To make him UNDERSTAND the patent claims! He was having an exceedingly hard time understanding what was the purpose and intention of the Burst invention. This is all part of the "give and take" of testing out and approving (or rejecting) a patent application. And the examiner wanted to be absolutely sure this was a unique invention, one not anticipated by prior art. (He was only trying to do his job.) And Izeki looked similar to him. Today, in hindsight, Izeki bears no likeness to the Lang patents! Izeki, for crying out loud, is titled “EDITING Apparatus for Audio and Video Information!” (Emphsis mine.) It's "TRANSMISSION" (which is another element that Powers loves to play games with) is over an interface to local, and often INTERNAL, storage and replay devices. This is an EDITING device! Remember? (Shades of the Kramer "portable music player!)

So when Burst told the examiner (and it took several tries -- I don't think he was too bright) "THIS IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT" of what we are trying to do with our invention, it clearly meant "THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING!" Izeki did data compression for storage and editing. There was no transmission over any sort of a communications link. The Burst patents used data compression for transmission over a comm. link for faster-than-real-time (FTRT) transmission. Both used "data compression," but toward different ends! Not the same claims. NOT THE EQUIVALENT of Izeki's "data compression." WHAT IS POWERS' PROBLEM WITH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

Well, the PTO examiner finally "got it," and Burst got its patents. The record is clear. Mike Heim on Thursday stressed, "The original claims, right from the start, discuss FTRT transmission. The claims were rejected, and we had to refine them."

Mike Heim (to let out a little "secret") is an electrical engineer, besides being a lawyer, and HE JUST LOVES THIS STUFF!!!!! Did he get rapped up and excited during his presentation? Oh, baby! He was so psyched, he couldn't get the words out fast enough, and the judge had to slow him down for the worn-out court reporter. He did a FANTASTIC job! I could have listened to him all day! When J. Patel reads back the transcript of the hearing, she will clearly see how Heim EXPLAINS the patent language, and Powers OBFUSCATES the claims, and CONCOCTS meanings that are nonsensical to the language of the patents, and the technology itself. Read on to see an illustration of this.