IMO you are spliting hairs. It is "obvious" to you that your interpretation of the technical explanation is correct, however, to multiple other technical experts at the USPTO that is not correct. I don't profess to understand all of Jona's explanations but I get the gist of what he is saying. The challenge for TPL remains unchanged. They now must convince an appeals board that the examiner's are incorrectly interpreting the technical layout of the clocks use and the relevance of the term "independent." They are only facts if the information is 100% indisputable but that doesn't appear to be the issue within the USPTO. I have to believe that if lay persons posting on chat boards see flaws in the examiners interpretation, than there's a strong possibility that it is the lay person that really doesn't get it. I'm not directing that towards you specifically, its' just a general statement about the possible disconnect that may exist between the technical people versus the non-technical. I'm certainly hoping they can be persuaded to think differently, just not counting on it. Call me the "Doubting Thomas" of the patent world. I hope we here something from PTSC shortly.