<It will be very interesting how the new, recertified patent is interpreted either for clarification of old claims or are they new claims altogether. Past infringment is the key to billions of dollars.>

We know what the amendments are. Why is it so difficult to make the above determination?

Off chip added to clarify external. The patent never covered a second on chip clock. It always meant off chip. IMHO, Same number of infringers before and after.

Wherein a clock signal of said second clock originates from a source other than said ring oscillator variable speed system clock. Added to overcome prior art. But the prior art was not a microprocessor chip, but a memory chip. It is my contention that we never would have attempted to apply the 336 to memory chips. While it may have been possible, think about the difficulty we would have had at the USPTO had we claimed memory chips infringed on the 336 in court docs. The same prior art we are arguing is different. So again, IMHO, same number of infringers before and after.

The only question is whether the second amendment can be explained sufficiently to a jury. I have no difficulty understanding the meaning of independent, not relying on terminology which this amendment is to clarify. I would think a jury should be able to as well.

GLTA, Opty