I agree exactly with this post and I noticed the same changes regarding the term "not directly" in the EDoT and the omission of it in the NDoC. The point that needs to be made is that the argument has shifted from reliance on the external crystal to the quantity of variability in the ring oscillator due to process, voltage, and temperature. HTC and Acer appear to be arguing that the variability in the ring oscillator is de minimis, which means it is so small that the variability is not enough to infringe. TPL argues there is enough that is measurable and enough to prove infringement. We'll see.