This is just a breakdown of the points and the win/loss - the next step is assigning weight to each o fthe points in the overall argument of the patent -

Regards

B. Disputed Constructions

1. ‘336 Patent

a. “central processing unit” – TPL Win

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.”

b. “microprocessor” – Appears to lean towards Matsushita

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 main disputes are whether the microprocessor must be capable of interfacing with input/output circuitry and/or memory circuitry, and whether the microprocessor needs to use a central processing unit.

The Court is not persuaded that the additional limitations proposed by the plaintiffs or the defendants are appropriate. The input/output interface and the central processing unit limitations are included in other portions of the claims and, therefore, adding those limitations to the construction would be superfluous. See, e.g., ‘336 patent, 32:12-13, 25-26. The Court construes “microprocessor” to mean “an electronic circuit that interprets and executes programmed instructions.”

c. “ring oscillator” – TPL Win

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 main dispute is whether a ring oscillator is required to have multiple inverters or whether it can have just one. The plaintiffs argue that a single inverter would not be appropriate because it could not maintain an oscillating output. The defendants, on the other hand, rely on extrinsic evidence to support their proposed construction. Specifically, the defendants cite to a semiconductor textbook depicting a ring oscillator with only one inverter.

The plaintiffs have the better argument. The extrinsic evidence cited by the defendants also supports the plaintiffs’ construction. It states that timers are built as “chains of inverters,” not just one inverter. Defendants’ Claim Construction Brief, Ex. U, MEAD & CONWAY, INTRODUCTION TO VLSI SYSTEMS (1980), at 234. Accordingly, the Court adopts the plaintiffs’ proposed construction.

d. “an entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock in said integrated circuit” – Matsushita Win

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 whether the ring oscillator may rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator.

In support of their construction, the defendants argue that the applicant disclaimed use of a control signal and a external crystal/clock generator in order to distinguish over prior art. The plaintiffs contend that it did not disclaim all types of control signals, such as voltage and current controlled oscillators; there was only a disclaimer of the more narrow “command input.” In addition, the plaintiffs argue that, although an external crystal is not directly used to generate a system clock signal, the external crystal can be used as a reference signal to account for delay across certain circuit elements.

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 signal. See Response to Office Action, April 11, 1996, at 8; Response to Office Action, January 13, 1997, at 4; Response to Office Action, July 7, 1997, at 3-4. Accordingly, the Court construes the term to mean “a ring oscillator variable speed system clock that is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU and does not directly rely on a command input control signal or an external crystal/clock generator to generate a clock signal.”

e. “variable speed” – Unclear to me who wins here

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.”

The plaintiffs contend that the specification discloses a ring oscillator that is capable of operating at various speeds based on variations in operating conditions. ‘336 patent, 16:59-63. The plaintiffs also argue that the defendants’ proposed construction is too restrictive. The defendants, on the other hand, point to the prosecution where the applicant describes fixed-frequency as a speed that is “tightly controlled” and “var[ies] minimally.” Amendment, July 7, 1997, at 3-4. According

1 The parties appear to agree that these two terms should have the same construction.

to the defendants, “variable speed” is the opposite of fixed-frequency.

Notwithstanding the defendants’ arguments, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “variable speed” to describe a component capable of operating at different speeds. Accordingly, the Court construes the term to mean “capable of operating at different speeds.”

f. “system clock” and “variable speed clock”1 – TPL Win

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.” The dispute is whether the circuit alone is responsible for determining the frequency of the signal.

A system clock does not generate the signal alone because the timing can be derived from the ring oscillator. ‘336 patent, 16:63-67. Accordingly, the Court adopts the plaintiffs’ proposed construction.

g. “oscillator . . . clocking” –  Appears to be TPL win

The plaintiffs contend that no construction is necessary, but if a construction is required, they propose “the oscillator generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU.” The defendants propose “an oscillator that is itself determining the frequency of the signal(s) used for timing.”

The Court agrees that the term requires construction. The Court construes the term to mean “an oscillator that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU.”

h. “processing frequency”

The plaintiffs propose “the speed at which the CPU operates.” The defendants propose “fastest safe operating speed.” The issue is whether the term refers to the “fastest safe operating speed.”

Accordingly, the Court adopts the plaintiffs’ proposed construction.

i. “processing frequency capability” – TPL Win

The plaintiffs propose “the range of speeds at which the CPU can operate.” The defendants propose “fastest safe operating speed at which the CPU can operate.”

As discussed in the previous section, “processing frequency” is not limited to the “fastest safe operating speed.” In addition, “capability” is not limited to a range or to the fastest speed.

Accordingly, the Court construes the term to mean “the speeds at which the CPU can operate.”

j. “varying together”2 – Unclear to me who the winner is

The plaintiffs contend that the term means “both increase or both decrease.” The defendants’ proposed construction is “increasing and decreasing by the same amount.” The dispute is whether this term is limited to “the same amount.” The defendants claim that the only way for the invention to work is to match the clock speed to the CPU’s processing speed capability

There is no limitation in the intrinsic evidence requiring the variation between the frequency capability and the clock to match exactly. The Court construes the term to mean “increasing and decreasing proportionally.”

k. “second clock” – PUSH/DRAW

The plaintiffs’ proposed construction is “a clock not derived from the first clock.” The defendants contend that no construction is necessary, but if construction is necessary, then they propose “another clock.” The plaintiffs argue that the claims state that the second clock is independent of the first clock. According to the plaintiffs, a second clock derived from the first clock would not be independent as required by the claims.

The defendants appear to agree that the first clock is independent of the second clock. In any event, the independence of the second clock is required by the claim language. Accordingly, the Court declines to construe this term.

l. “external clock” – Matsushita win

The plaintiffs propose “a clock not derived from the first clock, and which is not originated on the same semiconductor substrate upon which the entire variable speed clock is located.” The defendants contend that no construction is necessary, but if a construction is necessary, then they propose “a clock not on the integrated circuit substrate.”

As discussed previously, the defendants appear to agree that, like the second clock, the external clock is independent of the first clock. The plaintiffs’ proposed construction includes limitations already in the claims. The Court construes “external clock” to mean “a clock not on the integrated circuit substrate.”

m. “second clock independent of said ring oscillator . . . system clock” and “second clock independent of the ring oscillator system clock” – Matsushita win

The plaintiffs propose “a change in the frequency of the ring oscillator does not affect the frequency of the second clock.” The defendants propose “a second clock wherein a change in the frequency of one of the second clock or the ring oscillator system clock does not affect the frequency of the other.” The dispute is whether the term “independent” means “one-way independence” or “two-way independence.”

The defendants have the better argument. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “independence” to mean “two-way independence.” Accordingly, the Court construes the term to mean “a second clock wherein a change in the frequency of either the second clock or ring oscillator system clock does not affect the frequency of the other.”

n. “external clock is operative at a frequency independent of a clock frequency of said oscillator” – Matsushita Win

The plaintiffs propose “a change in the frequency of the oscillator (claims 6-9) or the variable speed clock (claim 10) does not affect the frequency of the external clock.” The defendants propose “an external clock wherein a change in the frequency of one of the external clock or oscillator does not affect the frequency of the other (claim 6).”

The Court construes the term to mean “an external clock wherein a change in the frequency of either the external clock or oscillator does not affect the frequency of the other.”

o. “fixed frequency” – PUSH/DRAW

The plaintiffs contend that no construction is necessary, but if the court determines that a construction is needed, then they propose “a non-variable frequency.” The defendants propose “having a speed that is tightly controlled and varies minimally.” This term is not a technical term and can be understood according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Accordingly, the Court declines to construe this term.