Yes, a PLL, but there was a court document going a step further stipulating to a ring oscillator in each PLL. That, in and of itself, is not grounds to reverse the ID. You will notice in your link at the end the exhibits from the NDoC re "does not use an external crystal to generate the clock signal" is up front and center. Jim O's arguments are compelling. We haven't seen the counter arguments yet and I would say the best argument we have is the "binning" argument. Who knows what will happen? It is a complete coin toss unknown. Hopefully Judge Grewal's late add jury instruction where we still won on infringement, the binning topic, the ALJ's refusal to even admit to the ring oscillator being in a PLL and that the ring oscillator generates the clock signal and the asynchronous/independent argument is enough. Hopefully our argument re adjusting the frequency being separate from generating the frequency prevails.