Again, I just dont know enough about what process DM has gone through. I will leave that up to people with more legal experience than I have. Probably more important is the law firm handling the re-exam

If you read the USPTO examiners report for rejecting the claims on 774 dated 9/20 , it goes into great detail about the article on the Sharp recording device. The article appears to be his main reason for rejecting the claims. I just can't figure out who pointed out that article to him, or if he found it on his own.