Couple of items stand out.

Examiner does not address our arguments re definition of independant. Just restates that second clock in Kato is separate and distinct from first clock generator. Not sure how one would have two clocks that are not separate and distinct, but in any case the definition of independant is still a significant issue.

The second clock. If i'm reading it correctly we argue that the second clock is a fixed frequency clock, and the examiner is saying that the second clock in Kato is at a fixed frequency at certain times. Yikes!.

Could be a big blunder on the part of the examiner. He states that Kato's second clock remains in synchronism with the first clock, since a linear relation exists between the two clocks. The clocking system in the 336 is asynchronous. The opposite!. Double Yikes. I do not believe the examiner has presented any argument that the 336 clocking is a synchronous system, hence I'm not sure how he can get away with that statement. I feel a little better.

GLTA Opty