Disavowal of Claim Scope is what the T3 are appearing to use against TPL in relation to the variable speed ring oscilator clocking mechanism taught in the 336 and 148 patents. The other two patents can be equally as important as the 336 and 148 and I will ask my EE contact to review the other two and give his opinion as to what he believes has a better claim construction. I found a good explanation of how Disavowal of Claim Scope is defined from an IP law firm website.

Disavowal of Claim Scope

Under the key Festo case, a narrowing amendment made to satisfy a requirement of the patent act creates a presumption that the patentee surrendered the territory between the originally filed claims and the amended claims{fn} Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 733, 152 L. Ed. 2d 944, 122 S. Ct. 1831 (2002). {/fn} . Thus, if one is claiming a running shoe, and is silent as to the number of lacing eyelets, the claims would cover all shoes satisfying the limitations of the claims regardless of the number of eyelets. But, of one amends the claims from reciting "six to ten eyelets" to reciting "eight to ten eyelets", the very act of filing the amendment raises the presumption that the applicant is disavowing, and therefore relinquishing from the scope of the claims, all shoes that have only six or seven eyelets.

The important point to remember is that any narrowing of the claims during prosecution, or even representations as to the meaning of the pending claims, will raise the presumption that the applicant is thereby disavowing subject matter and narrowing the scope of the claims. The presumption can be rebutted, but generally only where the amendment was tangential to overcoming a prior art rejection. For example, in a 2005 case the Federal Circuit held that representations made during prosecution did not amount to "a clear disavowal of claim scope" because the applicant was merely pointing out the relative benefits of the claimed subject matter over the prior art.

... because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes). Particularly, the examiner represented that the prior art '297 patent contained a blend of fiberfill batting comprised of synthetic polymer pulp and wood pulp. Instead of addressing the composition of the fiberfill batting in the prior art, AquaTex chose to traverse the rejection by distinguishing how the overall composition of materials was used, and by pointing out that the prior art composition of materials was designed to retain liquid for long periods of time. The representations made during prosecution neither support nor discredit any particular meaning of the term 'fiberfill'. They are not a clear disavowal of claim scope.