< It is not as broad as it was prior to the modification.>

That is not a true statement. If you said normally, or in most cases, or infringers will agrue that way, I would agree.

BUT IT IS NOT ALWAYS SO. EXAMPLE

< It follows then that the clock signal for the second clock, which the patent teaches is “independent,” should be “generated by a different source than said variable speed clock,” as TPL proposes (and as multiple reexaminations of the ‘336 patent have confirmed). >

Does the addition of the amendment

<wherein a clock signal of second clock origninates from a source other than said ring oscillator variable speed system clock>

change anything? It is describing the exact same system, is it not?

Opty