It is "obvious" to you that your interpretation of the technical explanation is correct, however, to multiple other technical experts at the USPTO that is not correct.

Not my interpretation.

20. The MMP patents-in-suit relate to a high-performance microprocessor system. In particular, the MMP patents provide innovations in the areas of microprocessor clocking,
microprocessor instructions, and microprocessor memory.
'336 Patent
21. Modern microprocessors have millions or even hundreds of millions of transistors, which together conduct countless logical functions, each of which has to be precisely coordinated with the others so as to avoid a collision in operations. An analogy is the conductor of a symphony. If the conductor does not provide a timing reference for the beat of the music by waving a conducting baton, then the result will not be highly-coordinated symphonic music, but a cacophony. Similarly, a microprocessor needs its own timing reference, which is usually provided as a clock signal. A clock signal is generally a sinusoidal or square wave that is regularly varying, and which provides a rising or falling edge from which the central processing unit ("CPU") can derive its own "beat." The speed of the modern microprocessor is much faster than a conductor could ever wave a baton, however − generally on the order of millions or even billions of cycles a second. There are many different sources of clock signals − e.g., quartz crystal oscillators, voltage- and current-controlled oscillators, and ring oscillators. They are all similar in that they provide an alternating output.
22. One function that microprocessor systems use a clocking mechanism for is to coordinate moving data into and out of the microprocessor. This data typically moves into and out of the microprocessor through an input/output interface, which is the microprocessor's means to communicate with the outside world. The data rate itself may be based on a clock signal that is much slower than the system clock signal that is timing the operation of the CPU. Prior to the invention of the '336 patent, the system clock would have to be synchronous with the slower input/output clock, slowing all operations of the microprocessor. The '336 patent teaches a technique o "decouple" the slower input/output clock from the system clock, allowing them to run independently and therefore for the system clock to run faster.
23. Prior to the invention of the '336 patent, the source of the system clock signal in a microprocessor system was typically an off-chip crystal, which generally has a fixed frequency. In contrast, the '336 patent teaches the use of a variable-speed oscillator circuit to provide a system clock that is on the same chip as the microprocessor, and which is therefore subject to the same variations in operating conditions, such as temperature and voltage, and in manufacturing processes. As a result, these variations affect both the on-chip oscillator circuit and the microprocessor, causing the speed of the oscillator and the range of speeds the microprocessor can operate at to vary together, ensuring that the output of the microprocessor remains valid.
24. In common parlance, the term "clock" has multiple uses, as a noun, adjective, and verb. For instance, one may speak of a "wall clock"; (noun), a "clock signal" (adjective), or "clocking a racehorse" (verb). Similarly, in the field of electronic circuit design, the term "clock" is used in multiple ways, such as "a clock signal" (an electrical signal used for timing) or a "clock circuit" (a circuit that generates electrical signals used for timing). Electrical engineers
of ordinary skill in the art use the noun "clock" to describe both a clock signal and a clock circuit, and to those of ordinary skill in the art, which is meant is clear from the larger context in which the term is used.
25. The specification of the '336 patent follows this convention with regard to the use of the noun "clock." In some places the noun "clock" refers to a signal, and in other places to the circuit. It is always clear from the context whether a particular occurrence of the term refers to a signal or a circuit. The specification of the '336 patent also occasionally uses the verb "to clock"; to describe the action of providing a timing signal to a circuit or circuit component....

...DISPUTED TERMS
41. In this section, I analyze and give my justification and support for what I believe is a correct interpretation of the disputed terms and limitations of the MMP patents-in-suit. All exhibits to which I refer are attached to the Declaration of Roger L. Cook.
Disputed Terms: '336 Patent
Disputed Term: "Microprocessor"
Disputed Term
Claims Plaintiffs Defendants
microprocessor 1-10 an electronic circuit that executes programmed an electronic circuit that uses a central processing unit to instructions and is capable of interfacing with input/output circuitry and/or memory circuitry interpret and execute programmed instructions
42. I understand that TPL proposes that the term "microprocessor" be construed as "an electronic circuit that executes programmed instructions and is capable of interfacing with input/output circuitry and/or memory circuitry." I also understand that the defendants propose that this term be construed as "an electronic circuit that uses a central processing unit to interpret and execute programmed instructions." I believe that TPL's proposed construction is correct.
43. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a microprocessor must be capable of interfacing with input/output circuitry and/or memory circuitry. In a typical computer, for example, a microprocessor reads instructions that are stored in memory, reads data that is stored in memory, and writes data into memory. Furthermore, a microprocessor communicates with peripheral devices such as hard drives, keyboards, and printers. Each of these peripheral devices includes its own input/output circuitry (i.e. different input/output circuitry than that which is present on the microprocessor itself). The input/output circuitry is necessary for that peripheral device to send data to and/or receive data from the microprocessor. If a microprocessor did not have the ability to interface with the input/output circuitry of peripheral devices or with memory circuitry, the microprocessor would not be able to perform any useful function. Therefore, I agree with TPL's proposed construction. Disputed Term: "An Entire Ring Oscillator Variable Speed System Clock in Said Integrated Circuit" Disputed Term Claims Plaintiffs defendants an entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock in said integrated circuit 1-2 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 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
44. For brevity, I will refer to “an entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock in said integrated circuit” herein as "an entire ring oscillator."
45. I believe that Plaintiffs' proposed claim construction for this term is correct for several reasons. First, it explains that the ring oscillator is “located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU,” which I believe is consistent with the specification and the prosecution history of the ‘336 patent. Specifically, the specification states: “Clock circuit 430 is the familiar ‘ring oscillator’ used to test process performance [i.e., the results of integrated circuit manufacturing processes]. The clock is fabricated on the same silicon chip as the rest of the microprocessor 50.” '336 Patent 16:56-58, Ex. 1 (parenthetical added) ("'336, 16:56-58"). Further, the specification notes that “[t]he ring oscillator 430 is useful as a system clock because its performance tracks the parameters which similarly affect all other transistors on the
same silicon die.” '336, 16:63-67. Also, the specification explains that “[s]ince the microprocessor 50 ring oscillator clock 430 is made from the same transistors on the same die as the latches and gates, it too will operate slower (oscillating at a lower frequency), providing compensation which allows the rest of the chip’s logic to operate properly.” '336, 17:5-10. Similar statements were made in the prosecution history. See Amd. 7/03/97 at 4-5, Ex. 8 and Amd. 2/06/98 at 3-4, Ex. 9. Thus, all of these passages demonstrate that the ring oscillator system clock is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU, which provides the benefit that the ring oscillator’s performance or speed will track those same performance parameters of the CPU as operating conditions vary, providing the advantages described in the ‘336 patent.
46. I also believe that Plaintiff’s construction is correct because the entire ring oscillator “generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU.” The specification states this fact: “The microprocessor 50 uses the technique shown in Figs. 17-19 to generate the system clock and its required phases.” '336, 17:54-55 (emphasis added). Because Figures 17-19 describe the ring oscillator variable speed clock 430 and its operation, the '336 patent therefore teaches that the entire ring oscillator generates the signals used for timing the operation of the CPU. The specification confirms this when it notes one potential benefit of the invention that “y deriving system timing from the ring oscillator 430, CPU 70 will always execute at the maximum frequency possible, but never too fast.” '336, 16:67–17:2.
47. Further, I believe that the Plaintiffs’ construction is correct because the entire ring oscillator is “capable of operating at speeds that can change.” The changes in the "speed" of the ring oscillator, which in this context refers to its frequency, track the corresponding changes in the CPU because both devices are on the same semiconductor substrate, which is a key point of the invention of the ‘336 patent. The specification provides an example of the capability of the ring oscillator to operate at different speeds, depending on the ambient temperature: "The ring oscillator frequency is determined by the parameters of temperature, voltage, and process. At room temperature, the frequency will be in the neighborhood of 100 MHz. At 70 degrees Centigrade, the speed will be 50 MHz." '336, 16:59-63. (Room temperature is approximately 20 degrees Centigrade.) The specification also notes that the speed of the ring oscillator and the CPU may vary up to four-fold: “The CPU 70 executes at the fastest speed possible using the adaptive ring counter clock 430. Speed may vary by a factor of four depending upon temperature, voltage, and process.” '336, 19-22. Similar statements were made in the prosecution history. See Amd. 7/03/97 at 4-5, Ex. 8 and Amd. 2/06/98 at 3-4, Ex. 9. Thus, based on these passages, I believe that one of ordinary skill understands that the entire ring oscillator is “capable of operating at speeds that can change.”
48. In contrast to the Plaintiffs’ technically accurate construction for the “entire ring oscillator” limitation, which is consistent with the teachings of the ‘336 patent, the Defendants' proposed claim construction is unduly narrow and limiting, and is not supported by the patent or file history. It is a negative limitation in the sense that it carves out numerous exclusions or exemptions for "an entire ring oscillator" ("… does not rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator"). One of ordinary skill might only find such a negative limitation useful if the resulting scope of the limitation is clear, but I believe that Defendants’ negative limitation does not provide sufficient guidance to such a person trying to determine whether he or she is practicing the invention. Instead, this construction would only inform of certain cases in which infringement may not occur. However, if a particular device or its use does not clearly meet one of the exemptions, a person of ordinary skill would be left without guidance as to whether that device or use practices this limitation. Defendants’ negative limitation is also problematic because it does not rule out other possible exclusions (a difficulty of multiple-exception negatives), nor does it define the universe of what is included affirmatively within the limitation. For this reason, a person of ordinary skill would not find this type of negative limitation technically useful.
49. Another reason Defendants' proposed construction is unduly narrow and limiting is that is purports to exclude all potential types and uses of an external crystal. For support, the Defendants may point to statements made by the applicants' attorney in the prosecution history with respect to crystals, which I have reviewed in my analysis. However, those statements were made in a very specific context, i.e., trying to overcome the examiner's rejection based on the Magar prior art reference. The Magar reference teaches the use of a traditional crystal oscillator in conjunction with a clock generator circuit to provide internal timing signals. The Magar crystal oscillator includes an off-chip crystal, connected between pins X1 and X2 of a clock generator, where the crystal controls the frequency of the CPU clock. In other words, while the clock generator circuit in Magar provides the timing signals for the CPU by modifying the output of the external crystal, the frequency or rate of those timing signals is determined by the fixed frequency of the crystal connected to the clock generator. Amd. 2/06/98 at 4, Ex. 9. According to the file history of the '336 patent, an external crystal in a traditional crystal oscillator is specifically utilized to provide a fixed-frequency clock: “The single, fixed, oscillation frequency of the crystal is determined by how the device is manufactured, i.e., how the crystal is cut and trimmed and other factors. Crystals are used precisely for this purpose; they oscillate at a given frequency within a tolerance determined by their manufacture.” Id. By using an external, fixedfrequency crystal not subject to the same variations in operating conditions and process parameters as the CPU, the crystal oscillator of Magar will not vary together with the CPU, and will not change with respect to these variations in temperature, voltage, or process parameters. Amd. 7/03/97 at 3-4, Ex. 8.
50. In contrast to the fixed frequency of the Magar crystal oscillator, the invention of the '336 patent is variable-speed, in that its frequency and operating characteristics (e.g., transistor propagation delay) change with variations in voltage and temperature on the semiconductor substrate, and with respect to process variations from when the chip was manufactured. Also, because the ring oscillator and the CPU are located on the same semiconductor substrate, the variations in voltage, temperature, and process parameters affect each of these circuit elements relatively equally, so the speed and operating characteristics of each will vary together. The "variable-speed" nature of the '336 patent invention's ring oscillator, and the "vary together" nature of the changes in the ring oscillator and CPU, are both achieved because the "entire" ring oscillator is on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU. This fact was highlighted by applicants' attorney in distinguishing the '336 patent invention from the crystal oscillator of Magar, which uses an external crystal as a fixed-frequency oscillator that does not vary together with the speed of the CPU. Amd. 7/03/97 at 3-5, Ex. 8; Amd. 2/06/98 at 3-4, Ex. 9.
51. A traditional crystal oscillator, however, is not the only use of an external crystal in conjunction with a system clock. For example, a crystal can be used as the source of a reference signal, as opposed to the source of a clock signal itself. An example of a crystal used as a reference signal would be in a delay-locked loop (DLL). A DLL is used to account for delays in the distribution of a clock signal across a chip (such as by a clock tree), and uses variable-delay lines to adjust the delay of the clock signal for individual circuit elements on the
chip. More specifically, a DLL uses a set of controllable delay elements, each set corresponding to a different circuit element on a chip, to output a delayed reference signal (i.e., the internal clock signal), which is then compared to the actual reference signal (i.e., the external clock signal). The result of that comparison is used to generate a control signal for the controllable delay elements to compensate for the delay through that particular circuit element, in effect by providing offsetting delay, thereby delay-locking the internal clock signal with the external clock signal for that circuit element. Thus, the internal clock signal is not just the external clock signal generated from the external crystal, but rather that signal plus some offsetting delay determined and provided by the DLL mechanism. The key point is that there are other uses of an external crystal in conjunction with a system clock, like the DLL example, that are entirely different than the traditional crystal oscillator of Magar, and which were never even in front of the examiner. 52. Because the applicants’ attorney’s remarks in the file history were about a specific use of an external crystal – i.e., a traditional crystal oscillator – and had no relation to other uses of an external crystal, like a DLL, it is my opinion that Defendants’ construction is unduly narrow since it excludes all uses of an external crystal. Furthermore, this result illustrates why the use of a negative limitation is so problematic and contrary to the views of one of ordinary skill in the art, in that we are trying to define "an entire ring oscillator" by what it is not. Here, the exemption is too broad, which renders the entire limitation too narrow, in that it purports to exclude all external crystals. Thus, the proposed claim construction is unduly limiting and restrictive, and in effect reads limitations into the claims (by excluding all uses of an external crystal) that were never even discussed during the prosecution of the patent. Alternatively, if Defendants' construction excludes some types of external crystals but not others, then the definition is vague and ambiguous in that it does not provide enough guidance to one of skill in the art to understand what types of external crystals are excluded.
53. Not only is Defendants' proposed construction vague and ambiguous because it is unclear which uses of an external crystal are excluded, it is also similarly vague and ambiguous in excluding the use of any “control signal” and/or “external … clock generator.” The term “control signal” is so broad as to seemingly apply to any signal used to control a circuit, regardless of the purpose of the control, or the type of control technique used. Thus, the construction would exclude all forms of ring oscillators that receive control signals, for example voltage-controlled oscillators (VCOs) and current-controlled oscillators (ICOs), which utilize voltage or current, respectively, to change the frequency of the oscillation. However, these types of ring oscillators were not described in the example provided in the specification of the ‘336 patent, and certainly not in the context of being excluded from the invention, nor were they at issue in the prosecution history. Yet, Defendants’ construction suggests that a person of ordinary skill would summarily exclude them from the scope of the claims of the '336 patent. This is not a sensible view, and not one that a person of ordinary skill seeking to understand the scope of the claims would adopt after reviewing the patent and the file history. 54. As support for their construction's requirement that a "control signal" cannot be relied upon (again, note the awkwardness of a negative limitation), Defendants may identify the portion of the prosecution history where applicants' attorney made statements to overcome the Sheets prior art reference. (This is my speculation as I do not see any other basis that relates to this proposition in the claims, specification, or prosecution history.) Sheets teaches a digital voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO), where a digital word is provided to an off-chip VCO to set it's frequency. 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." Amd.
7/03/97 at 5, Ex. 8. I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art, focusing on this discussion in the prosecution history, would conclude that the statements made about Sheets concern whether variations in frequency in the oscillator are due to changes in operating parameters like voltage and temperature (i.e., automatic changes), or are due to "command inputs" like the digital word issued by the microprocessor to the VCO in Sheets (i.e., programmed changes). That same person of ordinary skill would not categorically rule out all VCOs that receive a “control signal.”
55. I also believe that one of ordinary skill in the art would be confused by the portion of Defendants' construction stating that an entire ring oscillator cannot rely on "an external crystal/clock generator," particularly because this definition does not find support in the specification or prosecution history. First, a crystal and a clock generator are not equivalent at all, so I do not understand the Defendants' suggestion of such equivalence by use of the slash (“/”) between the terms. Second, there is no substantive discussion in the specification or prosecution history of an external clock generator, only the on-chip clock generator of the Magar reference in the file history. Third, the applicants' attorney did not distinguish over Magar by arguing that the Magar reference teaches a discrete clock generator and the '336 patent does not require such a circuit, but rather that Magar does not teach an entire oscillator on the integrated circuit because the crystal portion of the oscillator circuit in Magar is off-chip, and therefore would not vary with temperature, voltage, etc., in the manner described in the '336 patent. Amd. 2/06/98 at 4-5, Ex. 9. In other words, the clock generator of Magar alone did not comprise the entire oscillator. Thus, one of ordinary skill would understand that the presence or absence of an on-chip clock generator was not the basis of distinguishing the ‘336 invention over Magar, and would not read such a limitation into the claims. 56. I have already described why a carte blanche exclusion of all external crystals is inappropriate and inconsistent with the file history of the ‘336 patent. Similarly, the “external clock generator” exclusion finds no support in the specification or file history. To support the portion of their construction stating that an entire ring oscillator does not rely on "an external crystal/clock generator," the Defendants may identify certain statements made in the prosecution history to distinguish over Magar. (Again, I am speculating, but I do not see any other basis that relates to this proposition in the claims, specification, or prosecution history.) It is illuminating to consider the actual statements that Defendants might rely on for this portion of their construction (with emphasis added to the most pertinent language): "The chip 10 includes a clock generator 17 which has two external pins X1 and X2 to which a crystal (or external generator) is connected.” Amd. 2/06/98 at 4, Ex. 9 (quoting Magar). As a self-contained on-chip circuit, Magar’s clock gen is distinguished from an oscillator in at least that it lacks the crystal or external generator that it requires. Id. The Magar teaching is well known in the art as a conventional crystal controlled oscillator. It is specifically distinguished from the instant case in that it is both fixed-frequency (being crystal based) and requires an external crystal or external frequency generator. Id. at 5.
57. One key point of these passages is that nowhere do they discuss an external clock generator. Rather, these passages describe an “external generator” or an “external frequency generator.” An “external generator” or “external frequency generator” has nothing to do with an external clock generator. Instead, an external frequency generator is simply an off-chip oscillator, an example of which is a crystal oscillator. In contrast, a clock generator is a means to modify the output of an oscillator, e.g., “to produce additional required clock signals for the system.” Amd. 7/03/97 at 4, Ex. 8. Since the clock generator modifies the output of the oscillator, they cannot literally be the same device. Thus, because Magar’s teachings and the applicants’ attorneys statements were only about an “external frequency generator” (i.e., oscillator) and not an “external clock generator,” this portion of Defendants’ definition is not supported by the file history. Rather, any reliance on these statements as purported support for Defendants’ definition would be incorrect and a misreading of the prosecution history, as well as inconsistent with how one of ordinary skill would view the scope of the claims of the ‘336 patent based on the file history.
58. For these reasons, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that "an entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock in said integrated circuit" is "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." Therefore, I believe that Plaintiffs' construction for this term is the correct one.
Disputed Term: "An Entire Ring Oscillator System Clock Constructed of Electronic Devices Within The Integrated Circuit" Disputed Term Claims Plaintiffs Defendants an entire ring oscillator system clock constructed of electronic devices within the integrated circuit 3-5 a ring oscillator that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of
the CPU, where the ring oscillator is located entirely on the same semiconductor a ring oscillator system clock that is completely on-chip and does not rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator substrate as the microprocessor
59. For the same reasons I discussed in conjunction with the "entire ring oscillator" limitation above (i.e., for claims 1-2), I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that "an entire ring oscillator system clock constructed of electronic devices within the integrated circuit" is "a ring oscillator that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU, where the ring oscillator is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the microprocessor."; The main differences between the present limitation and the corresponding limitation discussed above are the absence of the “variable-speed” language, and the addition of the phrase “constructed of electronic devices within the integrated circuit,” but they are otherwise the same. Therefore, my reasoning discussed above applies equally to this limitation. As for the “constructed of electronic devices within the integrated circuit” language, I view this as being functionally equivalent to the “in said integrated circuit” language of the
corresponding limitation above, and base my present opinion on that reasoning as well. Therefore, for these reasons, I believe that Plaintiffs' construction for this term is the correct one. Disputed Term: "An Entire Oscillator Disposed Upon Said Integrated Circuit Substrate and Connected to Said Central Processing Unit, Said Oscillator Clocking" Disputed Term Claims Plaintiffs Defendants an entire oscillator disposed upon said integrated circuit substrate and connected to said central processing unit, said oscillator clocking 6-9 an oscillator that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU,
where the oscillator is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU and is electrically coupled to the CPU an oscillator that is completely on-chip and does not rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator
60. For the same reasons I discussed in conjunction with the "entire ring oscillator" limitation above (i.e., for claims 1-2), I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that "an entire oscillator disposed upon said integrated circuit substrate and connected to said central processing unit, said oscillator clocking" is "an oscillator that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU, where the oscillator is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU and is electrically coupled to the CPU." The main differences between the present limitation and the corresponding limitation discussed above is the change from “ring oscillator” to “oscillator,” the absence of the “variable-speed” language (which still applies based on the larger context of the claim), and the addition of the “connected to said central processing unit” and “said oscillator clocking” language.
61. The only difference between the claim limitations that potentially affects my analysis is the reference in the present limitation to “oscillator” instead of “ring oscillator." A ring oscillator is a form of an oscillator, but there are other types of oscillators as well. Therefore, the “oscillator” limitation is broader than the “ring oscillator” limitation. However, the basis for distinguishing over Sheets and Magar in the file history applies equally whether considering the claims of the ‘336 patent directed to an “oscillator,” or those directed to a “ring oscillator.” In other words, it was not the specific type of oscillator ─ a ring oscillator ─ that was the basis for distinction, but rather the “entire” oscillator being on-chip (Magar), or the changes in frequency of the oscillator occurring automatically in response to changes in voltage, temperature, etc. (Sheets). In fact, the whole discussion about Magar was in the context of “oscillator,” not “ring oscillator.” See Amds. 7/03/97 and 2/06/98, Exs. 8-9. Thus, my discussion of the statements made in the file history are equally applicable to the present “oscillator” limitation. Also, since Defendants use the same unhelpful negative limitations in the present limitation as for the “entire ring oscillator” limitation, my reasoning as to why that definition is incorrect would apply here as well.
62. I believe that Plaintiffs' construction is also correct because the reference to “said oscillator clocking” is actually, in full, “said oscillator clocking said central processing unit at a clock rate.” I understand this limitation to be functionally equivalent to the “system clock” limitations of claims 1-5, and therefore the same reasoning I used for that limitation would apply to the present limitation. I also believe that the “connected to said central processing language” means “electrically coupled to the CPU,” since it is the electrical coupling that provides an electrical path for the signals used for timing the operation of the CPU, as generated by the oscillator, to the CPU itself.
63. Therefore, for these reasons, I believe that Plaintiffs' construction for this term is the correct one. Disputed Term: "An Entire Variable Speed Clock Disposed Upon Said Integrated Circuit" Disputed Term Claims Plaintiffs Defendants an entire variable speed clock disposed upon said integrated circuit 10 a circuit that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU, capable of operating at speeds that can change, where the circuit is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU a variable speed clock that is completely on-chip and does not rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator
64. For the same reasons I discussed in conjunction with the "entire ring oscillator" limitation above (i.e., for claims 1-2), I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “an entire variable speed clock disposed upon said integrated circuit” is "a circuit that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU, capable of operating at speeds that can change, where the circuit is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU." The main differences between the present limitation and the corresponding limitation discussed above are the change from “entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock” to “entire variable speed clock,” and the absence of the “system clock” language. Here, the reference to “an entire variable speed clock” indicates that the entire circuit required to
generate the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU is on-chip and subject to the same variations in operating parameters (e.g., voltage or temperature) as the CPU, resulting in the automatic changes in frequency described above. For the “variable speed clock” portion of the limitation, my analysis remains the same as for the “system clock” limitations above because I believe that, in context, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “variable speed clock” here to be the same as “system clock” in the other claims. And finally, my reasoning as to why Defendants’ negative definition (which they also use for the present limitation) would not be adopted by one of ordinary skill in the art applies equally here. Thus, for all these reasons, I believe that Plaintiffs’ construction for this term is the correct one. Disputed Terms: "Varying Together / Vary Together / Varying … in the Same Way / Varying in the Same Way" Disputed Term Claims Plaintiffs Defendants varying together vary together varying . . . in the same way 1-2 both increase or both decrease increasing and decreasing by the same amount
65. These different terms, as they appear in the claims of the ‘336 patent, are used in the same manner but with slightly different phrasing among the claims. However, I believe that each phrase is meant to define the same principle, applicable to each claim's specific context, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would rely on a single definition for each of these related phrases. The Defendants’ definition also supports this concept, since it also uses a single definition for all four phrases. For brevity, I will refer to these four phrases collectively as the “varying together” limitations. While the meaning of the “varying together” limitations is the same among the claims, I note that the different claims specify slightly different elements that actually do the varying together. For example, claim 1 specifies that the “processing frequency capability of said central processing unit” and “a speed of said ring oscillator variable speed system clock” vary together. In claim 3, it is the "operating characteristics of electronic devices" of the entire ring oscillator and of the microprocessor that vary together. 66. I believe that the Plaintiffs’ definition for the “varying together” limitations – that the items being compared both increase or both decrease – is supported by the specification and the prosecution history of the ‘336 patent, and is therefore the correct interpretation. The ‘336 patent notes that transistors have propagation delays, which is the amount of time it takes before the output of a transistor becomes valid after being provided with an input, sometimes referred to as the “switching speed” of the transistor. The propagation delays of transistors are affected by
operating conditions, like voltage and temperature, and variations in manufacturing parameters. See '336, 16:44-53. In the context of the invention of the ‘336 patent, this has at least two effects. First, the speed of the ring oscillator (or oscillator in claims 6-9, or variable-speed clock in claim 10) will change based on variations in these parameters. For example, as the temperature of the ring oscillator goes up, the switching speeds of its transistors goes down, and hence its operating speed goes down. As mentioned previously, the ‘336 patent provides an example of this correspondence: “The ring oscillator frequency is determined by the parameters of temperature, voltage, and process. At room temperature, the frequency will be in the neighborhood of 100 MHz. At 70 degrees Centigrade, the speed will be 50 MHz.” '336, 16:59- 63. Of course, as the speed of the ring oscillator varies, so too will the speed of the CPU, as the ring oscillator generate(s) the signals used for timing the operation of the CPU. 67. A second effect of the variations in temperature, voltage, and process parameters is the range of speeds at which the CPU can operate. In the example given in the specification, this is described in the context of the “maximum theoretical performance.” '336, 16:50-53. The specification teaches that the maximum theoretical performance, or the maximum frequency a CPU can operate at and still provide a valid output, will change with variations in temperature, voltage, and process parameters. This is because the maximum theoretical performance is set in part by the transistor propagation delays of the transistors that make up the CPU, as the speed of the CPU cannot exceed these propagation delays without potentially causing errors. Actually, it is a bit more complicated than this, because there are different logic paths within the CPU, and the maximum theoretical performance is actually determined largely by the delays in propagating a signal through the slowest logical path, which is dependent on the switching speed of the transistors in that particular path as well as their actual configuration. For purposes of this discussion, however, it is convenient just to focus on the relationship between the propagation delays of the transistors in the CPU and the range of speeds over which the CPU can operate
(i.e., without producing errors). When the temperature of the CPU goes up, its maximum theoretical performance goes down.
68. The '336 patent specification describes how the ring oscillator and the speed of the CPU (or the range of speeds that the CPU can operate at) vary together: The ring oscillator 430 is useful as a system clock . . . because its performance tracks the parameters which similarly affect all other transistors on the same silicon die. By deriving system timing from the ring oscillator 430, CPU 70 will always execute at the maximum frequency, but never too fast. For example, if the processing of a particular die is not good resulting in slow transistors, the latches and gates on the microprocessor 50 will operate slower than normal. Since the microprocessor 50 ring oscillator system clock 430 is made from the same transistors on the same die as the latches and gates, it too will operate slower (oscillating at a lower frequency), providing compensation which allows the rest of the chip's logic to operate properly. '336, 16:63-17:10. Thus, the specification describes an example of “varying together” in which the switching speed of the transistors of the CPU slows down, and hence the range of speeds over which the CPU can operate decreases, but this is offset by the fact that the ring oscillator, being formed from transistors on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU, simultaneously slows down as well. This ensures that the output of the CPU remains valid. In another embodiment, “[t]he CPU 70 executes at the fastest speed possible using the adaptive ring counter clock 430. Speed may vary by a factor of four depending upon temperature, voltage, and process.” '336, 17:19-22.
69. The file history also explains that the varying together occurs "similarly"; and "automatically" (emphasis added): That is, the operational speed of the microprocessor and ring oscillator clock are designed to vary similarly as a function of variation in temperature, processing and other parameters affecting circuit performance. Amd. 4/11/96 at 7, Ex. 4. Crucial to the present invention is that since both the oscillator or variable speed clock and driven device are on the same substrate, when the fabrication and environment parameters vary, the oscillation or clock frequency and the frequency capability of the driven device will automatically vary together. Amd. 7/03/97 at 5, Ex. 8.
70. Importantly, what the specification does not teach is that there is an exact 1:1 correspondence in the amount of the change of the transistor propagation delays and/or speed of the ring oscillator, and of the change in the transistor propagation delays and/or speed of the CPU. For one thing, as mentioned above, the maximum theoretical performance of the CPU is not only a function of the switching speed of its transistors, but also of its logical pathways and how the transistors in those pathways are configured. Thus, just because the switching speeds of transistors across the substrate decreases (for example), this does not mean that all circuit elements are affected equally. What is critical is that the direction of the change (i.e., increasing or decreasing) of the performance parameters of both the ring oscillator and the CPU change in the same direction. Thus, if the speed of the CPU slows down, so too must the speed of the ring oscillator. In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “vary together” limitations to be referring to a qualitative correspondence – i.e., that both values increase or decrease – and not a quantitative (such as 1:1) correspondence. 71. I believe that Defendants’ definition for the “varying together” terms, which requires a 1:1 correspondence (“increasing and decreasing by the same amount”) is unduly narrow and limiting, and seeks to inject a limitation into the claims that is not found in the ‘336 patent specification or file history. I cannot find one reference in the specification or file history to a change in speed or propagation delays that is exactly matched between the ring oscillator and the CPU. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand there are reasons why this limitation in practice would not be necessary or even feasible in a real-world device. First, while the variations in temperature, voltage, and processing parameters will apply generally to the same semiconductor substrate, one of ordinary skill would expect that there may be microvariations in those parameters across different parts of the substrate. This of course would have different impacts on the amount of change of the propagation delays across the (microscopic) transistors. In a real-world context, one of ordinary skill would never expect to obtain exactly matched transistor propagation delays across an entire substrate, although the switching speeds would "vary together" as identified in Plaintiffs' definition. 72. The second reason that one of ordinary skill would not understand Defendants’ 1:1 correspondence to be required by the '336 patent is that the relationship between maximum theoretical performance of the CPU and the speed of the ring oscillator is not a set ratio, but rather a range of ratios. In other words, for the output of the CPU to remain valid, it is only important that the speed of the ring oscillator not exceed the maximum theoretical performance of the CPU, as limited by, in part, the propagation delays of the transistors of the CPU. So, it is perfectly acceptable that if the maximum theoretical performance of the CPU slows down due to an increase in operating temperature, the speed of the ring oscillator slows down even more, as this will not lead to errors. By corollary, if the temperature of the chip decreases, and hence the maximum theoretical performance of the CPU increases, it is not problematic if the speed of the ring oscillator increases by an amount less than the CPU. (There is also a minimum speed that the CPU must operate at to provide a valid output, but it is far removed from the maximum theoretical performance limit of the CPU and would not be an issue in the context of the variations in temperature, voltage, and process parameters described in the ‘336 patent.)
73. Thus, because there is not a technical requirement of 1:1 correspondence in the changes in the CPU versus in the ring oscillator, and because the patent specification and file history do not teach such a correspondence, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider Defendants’ definition a valid requirement of the claims of the ‘336 patent.
74. For these reasons, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the "varying together" limitations mean "both increase or both decrease." Therefore, I believe that Plaintiffs' construction for this term is the correct one.Disputed Term: "Second Clock"; Disputed Term Claims Plaintiffs Defendants second clock 1-5 a clock not derived from the first clock No construction necessary,
but if construed: another clock
75. I understand the term "first clock"; in Plaintiffs' proposed construction as referring to the clock signal output of either the "ring oscillator variable speed system clock"; circuit (in claims 1 and 2) or the "ring oscillator system clock"; circuit (in claims 3-5). For conciseness, I will use "first clock signal" in this manner. 76. I also believe that "second clock"; refers to a clock signal, rather than to a clock circuit. Claim 1 refers to "a second clock independent of said ring oscillator variable speed system clock," and claim 3 refers to "a second clock independent of the ring oscillator system clock." Describing one clock circuit as "independent of" another clock circuit would likely be ambiguous to one of skill in the art, but describing one clock signal as "independent of" another clock signal "would be clear.
77. I believe that Plaintiffs' proposed claim construction is correct because it reflects the specification and file history, which indicate that the second clock signal is not derived from the first clock signal. Specifically, an embodiment of a microprocessor with a second clock signal is described in the '336 patent at 17:11-37 and shown in Fig. 17. In this example, the CPU 70 is clocked at a variable speed by the "adaptive ring counter clock 430" (id. at 17:20-21), which would provide a first clock signal, and the I/O interface 432 is clocked by "a conventional crystal clock 434" (id. at 17:25-27), which would provide a second clock signal. The crystal clock circuit 434 includes its own oscillator, and the clock signal produced by the crystal clock circuit 434 is derived from that oscillator, not from the ring oscillator that is the source of the first clock signal. Thus, in the only embodiment disclosed, it is apparent to me that the second clock signal is not derived from the first clock signal.
78. Furthermore, the specification states that the purpose of using two clocks is "decoupling the variable speed of the CPU 70 from the fixed speed of the I/O interface 432." Id. at 17:32-33. Such decoupling can be achieved only if the second clock is not derived from the first clock. In addition, the specification discloses that "[r]ecoupling between the CPU 70 and the interface 432 is accomplished with handshake signals on lines 436." Id. at 17:35-36. Handshake signals are well known in the art for coupling asynchronous devices or systems. If the clocks were synchronous, as would be the case if the second clock were to be derived from the first clock, then handshake signals would be unnecessary. Since standard practice in the art is not to use unnecessary signals, I believe that the use of handshake signals indicates that the second clock in the embodiment shown is not derived from the first clock.
79. The file history is also consistent with this view. In Amendment B, Applicants distinguished claims with limitations related to the "second clock"; from Schaire, U.S. Patent No. 4,453,229. Amd. 4/11/96 at 9, Ex. 4. Applicants observed that "Schaire provides no indication that bus interface 10 is clocked by a signal from a clock different from that used to clock the host microprocessor. That is, the origin of high-speed clock signal 230 (FIG. 1) provided to bus interface unit 10 does not appear to be described. Hence, Schaire fails to teach the claimed provision of separate, independent clock signals to an input/output interface buffer and a microprocessor."; Id. This example shows that Applicants regarded the use of a second clock signal not derived from the first clock signal as an important feature, and Plaintiffs' definition reflects this.
80. I believe that Defendants' proposed claim construction is not correct because their use of "another clock"; is overly broad. For example, in some contexts, a buffered or delayed version of a first clock signal could be identified by a person having ordinary skill in the art as "another clock signal." However, such a clock signal would not accomplish the decoupling that is described in the specification as the purpose of clocking the I/O interface using a second clock
81. For these reasons, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a second clock is "a clock not derived from the first clock." Therefore, I believe that Plaintiffs' construction for this term is the correct one. Disputed Term: "External Clock"; Disputed Term Claims Plaintiffs Defendants external clock 6-10 a clock not derived from the first clock, and which is not originated on the same semiconductor substrate upon which the entire oscillator [claims 6-9] or the entire variable speed clock [claim 10] is located No construction necessary, but if construed: a clock not on the integrated circuit substrate
82. As with "second clock," discussed above, I understand the term "first clock"; in Plaintiffs' proposed construction as referring to the clock signal output of either the "oscillator" circuit (in claims 6-9) or the "variable speed clock"; circuit (in claim 10). For conciseness, I will use "first clock signal" in this manner.
83. It is also my understanding that "external clock"; refers to a clock signal, rather than to a clock circuit. Claim 6 refers to "an external clock, independent of said oscillator," and claim 10 refers to "an external clock wherein said external clock is operative at a frequency independent of a clock frequency of said [variable speed clock]." Describing one clock circuit as "independent of" another clock circuit would likely be ambiguous to one of skill in the art, but describing one clock signal as "independent of" another clock signal "would be clear.
84. I believe that Plaintiffs' proposed claim construction is correct because it reflects the specification and file history, which indicate that the external clock signal is not derived from the first clock signal and that "external" refers to a clock that does not originate on the substrate on which the entire oscillator or entire clock is located.
85. In the specification, an embodiment of a microprocessor with an on-chip oscillator and an external clock signal is described in the '336 patent at 17:11-37 and shown in Fig. 17. This is the same embodiment discussed above with regard to the meaning of "second clock"; in claims 1-5. As discussed above, the example shows that the second clock is not derived from the first clock. In addition, Fig. 1 shows a microprocessor chip with a pin (64) labeled "CLOCK-IN."; A person skilled in the art would understand that this pin is used to deliver to components on the chip a clock signal that originates externally to the chip. Since these are the only examples of an "external clock"; in the specification, the requirement of being "not derived from" the first clock applies to the external clock for all of the reasons I have stated above with respect to the "second clock."
86. Likewise, the statements from the file history regarding Schaire discussed above with reference to the "second clock"; in claims 1-5 apply equally to the "external clock." These statements reinforce my view that the construction of external clock should indicate that this clock is "not derived from the first clock," as Plaintiffs propose.
87. In addition to the reasons discussed above with reference to a "second clock," I believe that Plaintiffs' construction of "external clock"; is superior to Defendants' construction because Plaintiffs' construction better captures the distinction in scope between "external clock"; and "second clock," namely that the external clock originates somewhere other than on the substrate that contains the ring oscillator.
88. This construction is consistent with the example in the '336 specification (17:11- 37). The external clock in this example originates from the conventional crystal clock circuit 432 shown in Fig. 17, which is off the integrated circuit substrate that contains the ring oscillator system clock circuit 430.
89. It appears that Defendants agree that an "external clock"; must at least originate outside the integrated circuit substrate that contains the oscillator or variable speed clock, as Defendants' proposed construction includes "not on the integrated circuit substrate." 90. I believe, however, that Plaintiffs' construction is superior in clearly formulating the distinction between "second clock"; and "external clock." Defendants' construction is unclear as to the respect in which the external clock is "not on the integrated circuit substrate."
91. It is clear that the external clock signal must at some point be on the integrated circuit substrate because claims 6-10 specify a connection between the "external clock"; and an "on-chip input/output interface." Specifically, claim 6 recites that the external clock is "connected to said input/output interface." Similarly, claim 10 recites a step of "clocking said input/output interface" using the external clock. If the external clock signal is "not on the integrated circuit substrate" at any point, it cannot be connected to or used to clock an interface that is on the substrate. Thus, there must be some point at which the external clock signal is on the integrated circuit substrate.
92. I believe that Defendants' construction fails to specify any particular point at which the external clock signal is required to be "not on the integrated circuit substrate." Since Defendants' construction also fails to state that the external clock signal is not derived from the first clock signal, it is possible that a clock signal that is originated on the substrate, then sent off the substrate and subsequently returned to the substrate would be regarded as an external clock under Defendants' proposed construction. Plaintiffs' construction removes this possibility.
93. For these reasons, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an external clock is "a clock not derived from the first clock, and which is not originated on the same semiconductor substrate upon which the entire oscillator (claims 6-9) or entire variable speed clock (claim 10) is located." Therefore, I believe that Plaintiffs' construction for this term is the correct one. Disputed Terms: '148 Patent Disputed Term: "Processing Unit" Disputed Term Claims Plaintiffs Defendants processing unit 4,7,8,10 an electronic circuit that controls the interpretation and execution of programmed instructions None given

http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forum...

Be well