I see there is a bit of confusion on the sequence of events.

On 12-2-2011 there was an interview with the examiner. That is where woody demonstrated his recorder, and explained why the patent should stand. The examiner stated the prior art still stands as a cause for rejection.

On 12-21-2011 , a formal response to the patent rejection is submitted, where Gurries explains the unique power supply operation to the flash.

AN ADDITIONAL INTERVIEW was requested and granted. That interview happened on 1-12-2012. That is where Durant explains why he thinks the patent should stand. The examiner again states that he stands by his prior art rejection. The only agreement was "Agreed that PO's declaration may be used to define its position and/or to clarify the issues."

The examiner so far is standing by his rejection based on prior art, however, EDigital can try to persuade him with an additional written statement before Feb 12. That can include some new unique feature that they have not presented yet.

Hope this clears it up.