<Last there seems to be an issue on whether CM said or admitted to something that should have caused the examiner to narrow the claim>

This has significant import, however I do not recall it being part of the plaintiffs argument with respect to Talbot. Please clarify this vague reference.

<There also might be issues in regards to something about whether the ring oscillator is considered controlled or uncontrolled >

IMO that uncontrolled issue only becomes an issue if Talbot is a ring oscillator, which the plaintiffs claim to be the case. Why would we surrender any scope to differentiate from Talbot, if Talbot is not a ring oscillator?>

Opty