Well in all liklihood the definition of variable speed clock will be essential to determination of 336 infringement, but....

<There remains the possibility that the patent could be infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. This occurs when one is employing essentially the same technology, in essentially the same way, to achieve essentially the same result. Such infringement can exist, therefore, where there is no satisfaction of every recital of a claim. In evaluating this issue, it is important to review the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) prosecution file history, which contains the written communication between the applicant and the PTO that resulted in the issuance of the patent. This will provide some insight as to whether (while prosecuting the application) the applicant restricted the claims in such a manner as to preclude an effort to broaden the claims under the doctrine of equivalents in asserting infringement.>

If the on-chip variable speed clock is only a preferred embodiment, then I think under the above, Barco would still be infringing.

If it seemed like I was going around in circles on this, it is because I was.

Opty