We clearly disavowed control from an external crystal for driving a clock. This has been known since 2006/7 where Judge Ward was the first to recognize the disavowal. References to the disavowal are all over the prosecution history. TPL has argued that an entire ring oscillator clock does not rely on an external crystal in California. Honestly, I think we knew we had a good chance of losing that claim construction for "entire," as we've incorporated "does not rely on an external crystal/control source..." in California. Considering that and the circumstancial fact that the SP has not tanked like it has soo many times in the past when a legal document was made public, I guess we are ok. Honestly, there is plenty of explanation about not relying on an external crystal/control signal which has been known forever just makes me wonder what ia happening at the ITC. Have we had no teeth from 2006/7? Or are the Respondents (Big Companies) attempting mischaracterize how modern day microprocessors are clocked?