"Hence, the term "Entire" being at the core of the dispute, meaning for the 336 to work from the Respondents' POV, the external crystal clock would have to be part of the same silicon substrate as the CPU, which is currently not possible in a practical sense. We are arguing that the crystal is used as a reference point to coordinate system processes instead of the external crystal actually driving the timing of the CPU. How do I know this? The March 7th Markman transcript was made public."

Ease:

I appreciate how you have simplified a complex argument into something easier to understand for a non-engineering EE backround populace. I fervently hope Otteson has illustrated how the Respondents argument is impractical in the real world sense (Underlined words).

Additionally, the following sentence contains the bolded "Reference point". Could it be successfully argued it is a "distinction without a difference" by the Respondents??..I hope not. I believe Otteson has a good counter argument, hopefully persuasive. If Otteson can expound in greater detail on the "Reference point" and its relative insignificance in driving the timing of the CPU, we will win the day. Assuming Gildea reads and understands exactly how the '336' works, IMO he will likely see right thru the Respondents attempted deception. My concern is whether Gildea has the desire and Engineering backround and depth of understanding to not get bogged down in complex Engineering concepts and ideas. Beware of hidden agendas of "Big Money" vs. "Little Guy" as well. Obfuscate by the Respondents is the order of the day.

If..if...the legal argument is as you say, I feel much more confident. However, I am greatly disturbed Otteson's Expert Witness apparently blowing the filing date to answer Respondents/ITC attornies questions either willfully or with negligence may jeopardize the case by providing a legitimate legal opening for the Respondents to file a MSJ. Creating an opportunity for the ITC to rapidly expedite a case granting a MSJ in the name of judicial expediency is borderline legal negligence by Otteson IMO.

How the "Entire" issue ties into the ignoring Respondents/ITC requests brief is unclear if I am up to date..I believe they are two separate issues. Corrections welcome. Again mucho thanks for your investigation, perservance, and clarity. Virt