So our claim says:
A system comprising:
a controller configured to push A in one direction, then push A in another direction, then push A in 5 different directions in different ways.
Prior art only teaches pushing A in one direction. Assume that pushing A in all these wacky ways has benefits over just pushing A in one direction.
Examiner says the controller configured to is a functional limitation, does not define structural limitations, and only places certain limitations, namely, it has to be able to push A, and the reference can meet those. Any one run into something like this? It's a bit different (in my opinion) that what's been talked about on this forum, because it's not like the Examiner is *not* giving any weight to the configured to language. Examiner is just saying that the reference could do the thing that's claimed, because it can push A. But we want to claim this because pushing A the complex way we do it has many benefits, and no reference teaches that.
Anyone successfully overcome a rejection like this to a "computer configured to" or "processor configured to" limitation?