Ooops. I need to eat some of my words. The NEC's 336 reexam 90/008227 did indeed put forth the idea that Talbot discloses a ring oscillator. I did not look at the 148 reexam, but suspect it too did make the same claim. So the question is whether or not the plaintiffs changed their argument after hearing our response.

I need to reread the plaintiffs arguments to see if they specifically argued in their pre-Markman breif that Talbot discloses a ring oscillator. I do not believe they did, but going to read it right now.

Opty