Guys, I think people are reviewing this stuff too simplisticly. PTSC did have a legal firm take on a case based on a contingency fee basis a while back and it did not work out that well.

Is there truly "nothing to see?" I still have yet to see anyone on this message board clearly determine that Phase Locked Loop (PLL) systems actually do infringe on the 336. Clearly being the operative word and from one who actually understands.

All I see are one sentence questions and a few copy and paste excercises from others. Not one of you guys has addressed the PLL issue. Let's hope there are substantive questions by the ALJ to get around the "Entire variable speed ring oscillator clock" construction.

Otherwise, at least at the ITC, the 336 is not as valuable as we thought. Maybe we will fair better at the Northern District of California where IMO we got a better construction for Entire Variable Speed System Clock as long as the ring oscillator is variable based on "process, voltage, and temperature" is considered semi-superfluous as it is at the ITC. Never a dull moment and hopefully the ALJ will see fit to move forward.