I suppose it could/should be a linear relationship of change. And that makes sense to me. The key IMO is that it's not a one for one degree of change - an "exactly the same" change, which was the defendant's position. I think of it this way: they are two components of different size/complexity, etc., performing different functions (cooperatively), so an environmental (temperature) change or workload change would affect both components in the same way, but not to the exact same degree, because (again) they are two components of different size/complexity, etc., performing different functions.

Perhaps a better way to envision this is through that analogy Ward used. With our interpretation, "vary together" meant changed together. The analogy suggests the same thing, different strides of he and his wife walking in presumeably the same direction (i.e., two different components of different size/complexity, etc., performing different functions cooperatively). When they encounter a burden (heat, a hill), their strides will change proportionately, not exactly.

With the defense's interpretation (1:1), it presumes that the strides will always be exactly the same (that he and his wife, despite their differences, have exactly the same length legs, stamina, etc.). In other words, the defense's interpretation ignores the fact that the components in question are of different size/complexity, etc., performing different functions. I'm thinking that their "angle" here had to do with whether it matters that the CPU and clock are co-located as opposed to being separated. It does matter, or such is suggested via adoption of this approach by infringers. If it didn't matter, the patent claims would have been seriously weakened IMO (like eliminated in this regard).

Hope this helps. And remember I KNOW nuttin'! 'Cept that the court's intrepretation is definitely in our favor. Crap, still JIMHO.

SGE