This is the essence of the "Fish clock" I believe. D. seems at first glance to be a "win" for the defendants because of the following semantics in the ruling "The Court AGREES WITH THE DEFENDANTS that the applicant disclaimed the use of an input control signal and an external crystal/clock generator to generate a clock signal". Upon further review it appears this is exactly where the wording needs to be for TPL/PTSC. Good catch to you guys who have pointed this out. I hope this is not just a case of having rose-colored glasses on here- but to me that puts D in the win column for TPL PTSC. This is huge as this makes it almost a clean sweep on the '336 claims. The only one that appears to not be a direct victory is J. "Varying Together" The plaintiffs contend that the term means “both increase or both decrease. The defendants’ proposed construction is “increasing and decreasing by the same amount The Court construes the term to mean increasing and decreasing proportionally. Here we didn't get the wording exactly where we would have liked. TPL appears to be trying to capture a variance in the proportions. Otherwise they would have just said "proportionally" to begin with I think. They maybe don't want to get tripped up on data that may be out there where readings are not in EXACT proportions at some point(s) during operations. This can probably be argued around with the use of tolerances of some sort. I don't see anything resembling tolerance language anywhere in the ruling. As long as the judge is ok with the "stroll with the Missus" analogy here I think we are OK because when I walk with my wife I occasionally need to give here a little tug to keep up and vice versa ;-) I don't have as much tolerance on other differences my wife and I might have, but on this one I am A-OK! Opinions welcome here and all JMO.