Thanks sman....with regard to prior art not showing control circuitry issues....that is pretty much the way it summed up with Gurries assessment, Durant is now following up the issue with a response to the USPTO with a request of reconsideration for that issue.

Gurries, in his assessment of e.Digitals control methods, details the various MOSFET considerations relating to the removable memory (the device) issues....and how the VPP an VCC issues are energized and turned on an off....and he explained other issues beyond that.
The prior art simple does not do that.

It's now up to the examiner to mull that over and whatever else he had on his mind.

The examiner had issues relating to the coupling of control cirtury as noted...

"Examiner Tran contended that the rejections of claims 1-5, 18 and 19, as recited in the last Office action mailed 09/20/2011, are maintained because the above-identified prior art teaches each and every claimed elements and limitations recited in the claims; particularly, the limitation "a power source coupled to the control circuitry for supplying electrical power to the device", as recited in each of the base claims 1 and 19, comprises functional language, which requires no specific "coupling", and/or no specific structural arrangement."

where that issue is explained and compared to prior art, however, "particularly" indicates he had other issues beyond that.

doni