It can be confusing Tony. Basically the examiner says our patent describes the Sharp voice recorder (as well as another), which was described in an article in a Japanese technical journal published a year before we applied for a patent, but that nobody had discovered this article until HTC sent it to the USPTO last July. This is known as prior art.

Now it is up to EDigital to find something that makes the Norris Voice recorder different than the those described before our patent (prior art). It is a difficult task. We are trying now to convince the examiner that the way we control power to the flash module is different enough from the Sharp recorder, that we should still keep the patent. The examiner feels that the way the power coupling to the flash is described in our patent is basically the same as the Sharp Recorder, so now it is up to us to try to expand on that, or find something else that is different enough.