Ron, much appreciate the effort to clarify our situation on the 336. It's about time that people started to realize that the plaintiffs do not have an easy task, and the 336 is presently in good shape, no matter what happens with the Talbot issue.

The court refused to construe "entire oscillator," even though plaintiffs wanted the court to consture that phrase to mean a "ring oscillator." Ring Oscillators are simply a sub-group of all different kinds of oscillators used for clocking the CPU. The scope of 336 claims that include the term "entire oscillator" are therefore more expansive than simply "ring oscillators." IMO, a big loss for plaintiffs.

Other 336 claims include the term "entire variable speed clock." The court declined to construe the phrase as being a "ring oscillator variable speed clock" as the plaintiffs wanted. It logically follows that a "ring oscillaor variable speed clock" would be a subset of "entire variable speed clock," therefore the scope of the claims are more expansive than simply a "ring oscillator variable speed clock." IMO, a big loss for plaintiffs.

It is not necessary that plaintiffs infringe on every claim of every patent. You only need one and we already have multiple 336 wins, imo.

Opty