ease YOU are missing the point I am trying to make.

the judge AGREES with the Defenses TERMINOLOGY.........However the TERMINOLGY actually SUPPORTS OUR Invention.

Section "D" under the 336 Patent in the MH CC that YOU SAY we LOST:

this portion of the 336 Claims Construction deals with an On Chip Clock that DOES NOT "directly rely on a command input control signal or and external crystal/clock generator to generate "a Clock Signal"

and this is exactly right!!! That is what the Fish Clock Invention Did. It does NOT rely on an External Clock or a Second Clock or any Clock to generate a Signal.........It generates its OWN Signal. Period.........WE WON THIS.

Please RE-READ what I posted on Despain and maybe the Light will turn on for you.

Best Regards and GLTA