FWIW, I don't think the ring oscillator term will go against us as according to the "case law" (I can hear the groans now about my legal expertise ... Lol), I don't think the examiner's statement about non-controllable, etc., will fly as there is nothing to back up his general statement and there is case law that states a claim can not be more narrowly defined when an examiner unilaterally makes a statement as the examiner and the patentee could be talking passed each other. Then the response that TPL made to the examiner in writing made no note of the uncontrollable, etc, definition that the T3 are requesting. IMO, I think we have the upper hand. As for the "right justified" term, I don't know in relation to the instruction register. I would think there would've been Pacers re: the CPU DMA term but we have t seen anythng yet.