claims contruction ruling by Ward is a Major Hit (to quote you both) on the 336?

The following is what Judge Ward says, but what does it mean exactly? After reading Despain again, I have come to the conclusion that while agreeing with the Defenses "wording" Judge Ward actually "supports" the 336 Inventors Claims Even Further...Please read further and comments are welcome.

"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""

I believe that the following definitions from Despain are what Judge Ward is referring to in the above Claim and it Supports the Plaintiffs/Inventors intentions.  IMO

 The applicants' attorney distinguished over Sheets by noting that "n Sheets, a command input is required to change the clock speed," and that, in the present invention, "no command input is necessary to change the clock speed." Amd. 1/08/97 at 4, Ex. 6. (Note that the applicants' attorney refers to "command input," not "control signal." The Defendants are trying to broaden the scope of the exclusion without any basis, as a "control signal" is broader than a "command input," to the extent that this term can be understood.) These statements by applicants' attorney concern how a "command input" is used in Sheets to cause programmed changes to the clock frequency, in contrast to the automatic changes of the clock frequency in the ‘336 invention with respect to variations in temperature, voltage, process parameters, etc. In other words, the issues centered on the "variable-speed" and the "vary together" limitations, and not on what types of voltage-controlled oscillators qualify as "an entire ring oscillator."

So, IMO, it appears that the Judge has in "essence" used the Defense Terms to OUR Advantage.

Greeneyes, I'd appreciate it if you'd weigh in on this too.

GLTA

Deb