<The real question is whether we/TPL disavowed stuff in a 2008 re-exam>
I disagree.
The real question is whether Talbot contains a ring oscillator. If it doesn't, then the plaintiffs arguments that we surrendered scope in differentiating from Talbot are extremely weak, imo.
I do not believe it is possible to decide on any surrender of scope issues until it is determined whether or not Talbot contains a ring oscillator.
Two different examiners decided that Talbot does not contain a ring oscillator. We have an EE's opinion that agrees with the examiners. It would appear plaintiffs have the more difficult task.
Opty