The first term for construction is “central processing unit.” The plaintiffs propose “an electronic circuit that controls the interpretation and execution of programmed instructions.” The defendants propose “the central electronic circuit in a computer that controls the interpretation and execution of programmed instructions

The Court construes the term to mean “an electronic circuit on an integrated circuit that controls the interpretation and execution of programmed instructions

TPL 0              ARM 1

The plaintiffs propose “an electronic circuit that executes programmed instructions and is capable of interfacing with input/output circuitry and/or memory circuitry.” The defendants propose an electronic circuit that uses a central processing unit to interpret and execute programmed instructions.”

The Court construes “microprocessor” to mean “an electronic circuit that interprets and executes programmed instructions.”

Too close to call

The plaintiffs contend that this term means “an oscillator having a multiple, odd number of inversions arranged in a loop.” The defendants propose “an [oscillator] having an odd number of inverting logic stages connected in a loop

The plaintiffs have the better argument

TPL 1              ARM 1

The plaintiffs argue that this term means “a ring oscillator that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU, capable of operating at speeds that can change, where the ring oscillator is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU.” The defendants’ proposed construction is “a [ring oscillator variable speed system clock] that is completely on-chip and does not rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator.” The dispute is whetherthe ring oscillator may rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator.

The Court agrees with the defendants that the applicant disclaimed the use of an input control signal and an external crystal/clock generator to generate a clock sig

TPL 1              ARM 2

The next term is “variable speed.” The plaintiffs’ proposed construction is “capable of operating at speeds that can change.” The defendants argue that the term means “a speed (frequency) that is not tightly controlled and varies more than minimally.”

Court construes the term to mean “capable of operating at different speeds.”

TPL 2              ARM 2

The plaintiffs propose “a circuit that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU.” The defendants contend that the term means “a circuit that is itself responsible for determining the frequency of the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU.”

Accordingly, the Court adopts the plaintiffs’ proposed construction.

TPL 3              ARM 2