As long as you offered, here is the pertinent statements made by our expert which prompted my original post, basically trying to figure out whether there is any logical way for Judge Ward to construe 'varying together' as the defendants see it. TIA Opty
Crucial to the present invention is that since both the oscillator or variable speed clock and driven device are on the same substrate, when the fabrication and environment parameters vary, the oscillation or clock frequency and the frequency capability of the driven device will automatically vary together. Amd. 7/03/97 at 5, Ex. 8.
70. Importantly, what the specification does not teach is that there is an exact 1:1 correspondence in the amount of the change of the transistor propagation delays and/or speed of the ring oscillator, and of the change in the transistor propagation delays and/or speed of the CPU. . I believe that Defendants’ definition for the “varying together” terms, which requires a 1:1 correspondence (“increasing and decreasing by the same amount”) is unduly narrow and limiting, and seeks to inject a limitation into the claims that is not found in the ‘336 patent specification or file history
