Snippets from the Talbot specification. It certainly sounds like you set this Talbot timing aparatus up to provide what you want in terms of performace. That last snippet indicating you need a two phase clock generator if you want to use for a microprocessor absolutely does it for me. This querry regarding the Talbot thing is a boondoggle.

<Originally, the inventors designed the phase locked loop to include optional and alternative components connectible into the loop by way of fuses such that manufacturing variations could be compensated. Surprisingly, they found that the design of the convertor and filter circuit and of the voltage controlled oscillator means that in many cases trimming of the phase locked loop was not necessary. Accordingly, in many practical cases, it is only necessary to provide for variation of the divider integer N of the divider 8 such that the frequency of the output signal can be chosen as is required. >

<The frequency of the oscillation will depend upon the capacitance of the MOS capacior 50 and upon the value of the current flowing through the current sources 44 and 45 which is of course dependent upon the magnitude of the input voltage at input 43. >

<It is intended that the output of the oscillator circuit shown in FIG. 3 be used as a high frequency clock signal, for example for a processor or microcomputer.In these circumstances it is generally necessary to provide at least two clock signals of complementary phase which do not overlap. Thus, the output of the oscillator circuit shown in FIG. 3 could be applied by way of a two phase clock generator (not shown) to the microcomputer 2 (FIG. 1).>

On to the uncontrollable thing. Another boondoggle. No way the judge is going to construe "ring oscillator" to include a limitation which only the examiner stated and had no bearing overcoming the prior art then or now.

All IMHO

Opty