< He could've ruled against us on the ring oscillator term but he didn't. >

I take issue with the wording of the above. He could have just as easily ruled against the plaintiffs.

If the evidence, which brings Talbot into question, were strong enough, why would the court waste its time with more briefings? I suspect it is because the evidence that was presented at the Markman hearing was not enough to convince anyone, but too important not to consider the possibility that convincing evidence can be provided. If the plaintiffs had more or better evidence, they surely would have used it already. So, will a rehash of the Markman hearing provide more convincing evidence than presently exists?

Perhaps we are simply left with the construction of ring oscillator and there is plenty of intrinsic evidence available to help define it. I seriously doubt that the court will construe it to include descriptive terms used only by the examiner in an interview summary.

IMO, the court gave the plaintiffs a break, allowing them time to take stock of the situation, consider the probable outcomes of the remaining issues, and act accordingly before the loss is magnified further.

Opty