The ring oscillator argument revolves around the Talbot prior art. The following is the opposition's description of the Talbot oscillator.
(Schmitt Trigger inverter symbol is a variant of basic inverter symbol.) In Figure 3 of Talbot, one inverter is represented by a simple inverter symbol (51); one inverter is represented by a special inverter symbol (a Schmitt Trigger inverter 52); and one inverter is represented as a common combination of CMOS transistors that acts as an inverter (transistors 48 and 49).
The opposition is trying to convince the court there are multiple inverters in the Talbot prior art, but they need to stretch what is an inverter. And the reason is because of Judge Ward's construction.
Judge Ward’s construction of “ring oscillator” requires, to oscillate, “a multiple, odd number of inverting logic stages connected in a loop.” >
The other reasoning that the oscillaor in Talbot is not a ring oscillator is because,
<The oscillator in Figure 3 of Talbot is capable of oscillating with only the capacitor 50 (and 54) and the Schmitt trigger (52), where the output of the Schmitt trigger is directly wired back to the input of the Schmitt trigger.>
<Contrary to the circuit described in Talbot, a single stage of a ring oscillator with an output connected to an input will not oscillate, but will instead remain at a stable voltage level.>
Personally, I think we have the better argument.
All IMHO
Opty