We could continue this debate ad infinitum as it is all about interpretation.

Please find below examples of the legal definitions of terms, as per the Markman, for the '336 patent which could be given to a jury:

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.”

f. “system clock” and “variable speed clock”1

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”

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.”

Be well