The ring oscillator is mentioned in (new claims) 15,16,17,21,22, 23. But only with respect to it's size being included in the total area, as compared to the memory unit.

I think this was an issue with Judge Ward and he actully sided with us in the Markman ruling on the issue of toatal surface area?? IMO this just cleans that issue up in the way the patent is written and how some companies might try to claim other components should be included in definitions. Corrections welcome.

The use of a ring oscillator is defined in claim four of the patent(original) and TPL did clarify in their response about how prior art(Talbot) used a VCO (voltage controlled oscillator) and does not teach the use of a ring oscillator.  From my reading I see no new claims regarding the ring oscillator specifically.  If the PTO agrees there is a difference in using the VCO and the ring oscillator??, then I'd say the 148 is solid.

GLTAL