FWIW.The points that the two sides appear to be contending about are as follows (from TPL's point of view):

1) The entire oscillator on the chip – Defense wants claim to restrict entire oscillator on chip as well as additional clock circuitry used to generate clock

2) Processing frequency and processing
frequency capability – Defense wants processing frequency to be the fastest safe operating speed while TPL wants the definition to mean the current frequency.

3) Varying together – Defense wants claim to be restricted to varying by the same amount, which implies direction while TPL wants a more general description .

4) The total area used by the memory. Defense says 50 % of unused area and TPL says 50% of active area (pg 21).

5) Column latches, caches and instruction registers should be part of memory is TPL’s contention (pg 23).

Regarding the first disputed claim, I’ve read the transcript a couple of times and it appears that TPL is arguing that there could be additional clock generation related circuitry outside the chip. As far as I know, and I’ve verified this with engineers who have about 15-20 yrs of experience (I only have about 6), the ring oscillator cannot function on its own. To provide a steady clock a ring oscillator requires a reference clock connected to a phase frequency detector, followed by a charge pump and a loop filter. The reference clock has to come from a crystal that is EXTERNAL to the Microprocessor. The question is whether this knowledge will be construed as something a person of ordinary skill in the art would know of. So IMO the defenses wording for the claim is way too rigid and practically very difficult if not impossible.

Processing frequency is more a matter of legal language than engineering. In the engineering world it’s the current frequency. As an example, a microprocessor may be capable of operating at a safe speed of 400 MHz but for a variety of reasons such as power dissipation and noise, the microprocessor may be operated at 300 MHz. Therefore the processing frequency is 300 and not 400 MHz.

The defenses definition of varying together is, as I wrote before in a prior post, too rigid.

I haven’t looked at points 4 and 5. If I get the get the chance will post more on those.

I will admit that I was kind of nervous mainly about the first claim definition but after a few days of research I think the first three claims should match TPL’s definitions.