<As for the second issue (Boufarah), the Court asked for “further briefing,” not additional evidence>

Well it does look like I was wrong on this. Seems like I'm eating a lot of crow today. YUK!.

However, Since the court already ruled on the right justification issue perhaps the issue is something different?

It seems that the issues are never made quite clear. Apparently the issue with Talbot is not that it is a ring oscillator, but whether we disclaimed use of VCOs. At least that is the way I’m currently reading it.

<Defendants believe that Plaintiffs’ desire for discovery demonstrates that there was no clear and unambiguous disclaimer—if further extrinsic evidence is required then, by definition, the alleged disclaimer is not “clear and unambiguous.”>

Opty