"Jim Otteson referenced the operational range and the Texas Instruments expert did also. I'm assuming Qualcomm and the other company's expert would say something similar. It is up to Otteson to extract information on how modern day PLLs operate in line with Dr. O's infringement contentions from the three chip manufacturing companies TPL called."

Great post Ease !!....More understandable for the layman. Kudos.

My initial reaction after reading your post of how the RO works in the environment located on the microprocessor switched soon thereafter to your phrase mentioning TI & Qualcomm. IMO, our legal argument concerning 336 Claims will be greatly strengthened, if TI & Qualcomm's outside experts both verify and validate in detail how the 336 operates and hopefully stating how prevalent the 336 is used in the Electronics in nearly all industries. Fairly obvious, I know.

But having huge Microprocessor firms such as TI & Qualcomm reinforce Otteson's Claims, gives Judge Gildea "Cover", to resist Big Business (Conjecture), and render a favorable verdict to PTSC, if Otteson can lay the proper legal argument. It no longer appears on the outside as this llittle "Garage inventor" David vs. Goliath situation, whereby, Goliath stomps all over David. But rather, David aided by "Megatron>> TI & Qualcomm", (no not Calvin Johnson WR Detroit Lions) lol, but the original Transformers' Megatron against the Goliaths - Respondent 12 machines/ Terminators... LOL..Of course, we don't know who the Respondent 12 will call in as outside experts to refute Otteson, Dr.O, & TI/Qualcomm testimony...

Cautiously, more optimistic, but its early. Schematics ! Schematics! Schematics!!!!!!!!!!!!

OT: Last night I made a post containing the phrase below:

"This is not to say Judge Gildea will not find infringement at trial, either by testimony or political/business pressure>> which we will never know his reasoning behind his decision."

Upon further review, I can understand whereby I may have confused the reader. I wrote one too many "Nots", in the phrase creating a double negative. To clarify, I meant to write:

This is not to say Judge Gildea will find infringement at trial, either by testimony or political/business pressure>> which we will never know his reasoning behind his decision. Hopefully, this will clarify my original meaning and intent. Thank you for your understanding. Virt