New pacer--AMENDED PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
PREHEARING STATEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE
LIMITED,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:08-cv-00877 JW
HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA,
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE
LIMITED,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:08-cv-00882 JW
BARCO N.V., a Belgian corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD.,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORP.,
ALLIACENSE LTD.,
Defendants.

AMENDED PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
PREHEARING STATEMENT

Pursuant to the Court’s First Patent Scheduling Order, and to maximize the efficiency to
the Court, the parties from all three above-captioned related actions, Plaintiffs Acer Inc., Acer
America Corp., and Gateway, Inc. (collectively “Acer”), HTC Corporation and HTC America
Inc. (collectively “HTC”), and Barco, N.V. (“Barco”) and Defendants Technology Properties
Limited (“TPL”), Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Alliacense Limited (collectively
“Defendants”), hereby submit the following consolidated Joint Claim Construction and
Prehearing Statement pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3.

BACKGROUND

The parties filed their original Patent Local Rule 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and
Prehearing Statement on October 29, 2010 (“Original Statement”). Doc. No. 203 Acer et al. v.
TPL et al., 5:08-cv-877 JF/HRL. The Original Statement included an Exhibit A setting forth
agreed upon constructions, an Exhibit B comparing disputed constructions for 30 terms, and
Exhibits C and D setting forth Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ supporting evidence.
Subsequently, claims in two of the four patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,440,749 (the
“’749 patent”) and 5,530,890 (the “’890 patent”), were amended and added during reexamination
proceedings. The Defendants then moved to amend their infringement contentions to address the
amended and the additional claims, which the Court (Hon. Jeremy Fogel) granted-in-part and
denied-in-part on May 13, 2011. During a case management conference held on June 24, 2011,
the Court modified the briefing schedule based upon the parties’ stipulation to allow time to
address the amended infringement contentions before the claim construction hearing then
scheduled for November 14, 2011.
Under the modified schedule, the parties met and conferred on additional claim terms for
construction in light of the amended infringement contentions, and filed a Supplemental
Statement under Patent Local Rule 4-3. The Supplemental Statement included an Exhibit A
identifying three additional disputed terms. There were also additional agreements reached on
certain terms and agreement that the construction of certain disputed terms would control the
construction of other related terms.

I. AGREED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS

Exhibit A sets forth a list of claim terms and their respective constructions that have been
agreed upon by all the parties in the related actions. This includes the additional agreements
reached in the Supplemental Statement.

II. DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS

Exhibit B is a chart that sets forth disputed claim terms from U.S. Patent Nos. 5,440,749;
5,530,890; 6,598,148; and 5,809,336 and the respective constructions proposed by each party.
All four patents are at issue in the Acer v. TPL and HTC v. TPL actions, while only the ’749, ’890,
and ’336 patents are at issue in the Barco v. TPL action.
The proposed identification of evidence for each disputed claim term provided by
plaintiffs Acer, Barco and HTC is attached as Exhibit C.
The proposed identification of evidence for each disputed claim term provided by
Defendants is attached as Exhibit D.
Exhibit E contains additional disputed claim terms from the ’749 patent, the respective
constructions proposed by each party, and each parties’ identification of evidence (which was
originally submitted as Exhibit A to the supplemental claim construction statement). These terms
arose following the reexaminations of the patents-in-suit. The parties have not identified any of
those terms as among the ten most significant terms in Part III below.

III. IDENTIFICATION OF MOST SIGNIFICANT CLAIM TERMS

The Court has ordered the parties in all three actions to identify the ten claim terms most
significant to the resolution of the issues in the case, with consideration given to HTC’s pending
motion for summary judgment. The parties have accordingly identified the following claim terms
as being most significant to the resolution of the issues in that case at this time:
1. multiple sequential instructions (‘749 Patent)
2. separate direct memory access central processing unit (‘890 Patent)
3. instruction register (‘890 Patent)
4. operates asynchronously to (‘336 Patent)
5. supply the multiple sequential instructions to said central processing unit
integrated circuit during a single memory cycle (‘749 Patent)
6. clocking said central processing unit (’336 Patent)
7. ring oscillator (‘148, ‘336, ‘890, ‘749 Patents)
8. providing an entire variable speed clock disposed upon said integrated circuit
substrate (‘336 Patent)
9. push down stack connected to said ALU (‘749 Patent)
10. as a function of parameter variation (‘336 patent)
The parties agree that the Court’s construction of “connected to” within Term 9 above,
will apply in the same manner to Rows 3, 8, 9, 15, and 16, as numbered in Exhibit B attached to
hereto.
The parties also agree that the construction of “operation of said input/output interface
asynchronously from said central processing unit” is closely related to “operates asynchronously
to.” (Ex. B, No. 29). To avoid duplicative briefing and to promote judicial economy, the parties
agree that if the Court construes the phrase “operates asynchronously to” to mean “operates
without a timing relationship to/with,” then Plaintiffs’ proposed construction for “operation of
said input/output interface asynchronously from said central processing unit” in Exhibit E, Row 3
(page 1) will apply. Conversely, if the Court construes the phrase, “operates asynchronously to”
as “timed by independent clock signals,” then Defendants’ proposed construction for “operation
of said input/output interface asynchronously from said central processing unit” set forth in
Exhibit E, Row 3 (page 4), will apply.
Plaintiffs’ Position Regarding Additional Term:
Plaintiffs propose that the 10 terms to be construed at this time include the following three
parallel, case-dispositive terms which should be construed consistently and at the same time:
 “An entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock in said single integrated
circuit” (Row 23 of Exhibit B in the JCCS);
 “An entire oscillator disposed upon said integrated circuit substrate” (Row 19);
and
 “Providing an entire variable speed clock disposed upon said integrated circuit
substrate” (Row 28).1
Plaintiffs respectfully submit that these three terms should be considered a single term for
purposes of identifying the 10 most significant terms to be construed. See Order Vacating Case
Management Conference; Denying Motion to Strike, US Ethernet Innovations LLC v. Acer, Inc.,
No. 10-03724 JW (Dkt. No. 547) (Ware, J.) (Sept. 7, 2011) at pages 5-7.
As explained in the parties’ respective claim construction briefing, the single embodiment
in the patents-in-suit discloses an on-chip “ring oscillator” that acts as a variable speed system
clock for the CPU. This single disclosure of “ring oscillator” (Row 22) (an agreed-upon term for
construction) is the specification support for Rows 23, 19 and 28 quoted above. After Judge
Ward’s claim construction ruling in the Texas action, Defendants distinguished prior art during
reexamination proceedings by expressly representing to the Examiner that the disclosed and
claimed “ring oscillator” is “non-controllable” and “variable based on the environment.” See
Interview Summary, 2/12/08, Control No. 90/008,227.
Based on Defendants’ express disclaimer, Plaintiffs argue in their consolidated claim
construction brief that the oscillator or clock in each of Rows 23, 19 and 28 be limited, inter alia,
as “non-controllable” and “variable based on the voltage, temperature and process parameters in
the environment.” Defendants oppose this limitation, but in their claim construction briefs
Defendants do not differentiate among Rows 23, 19 and 28 based on the differences in their claim
language. The parties’ positions for Rows 22, 23, 19 and 28 are set forth in the table below (with
differences shown in boldface and strikeouts):
Claim term Plaintiffs’ Construction Defendants’ Construction
Ring oscillator
(Row 22)
(An Agreed-
Upon Term for
An oscillator having a multiple, odd
number of inversions arranged in a
loop,
An oscillator having a multiple, odd
number of inversions arranged in a
loop
1 Because Rows 23, 19 and 28 have similar language and raise the same claim construction
disputes, Plaintiffs had proposed during meet-and-confer that only Row 23 be construed, but its
construction would control the constructions of Rows 19 and 28. Row 23 was suggested as
representative because it includes practically all of the disputed language. However, Defendants’
position, articulated below, that the differences in language affect the claim construction issues
appears to require that all three rows be construed.
Claim term Plaintiffs’ Construction Defendants’ Construction
Construction in
Part I)
wherein the oscillator is: (1) noncontrollable;
and (2) variable based
on the temperature, voltage, and
process parameters in the
environment
An entire ring
oscillator
variable speed
system clock in
said single
integrated
circuit
(Row 23)
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,
wherein the ring oscillator variable
speed system clock is: (1) noncontrollable;
and (2) variable based
on the temperature, voltage, and
process parameters in the
environment
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
An entire
oscillator
disposed upon
said integrated
circuit
substrate
(Row 19)
An oscillator
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,
wherein the oscillator is: (1) noncontrollable;
and (2) variable based
on the temperature, voltage, and
process parameters in the
environment
An oscillator
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
Providing an
entire variable
speed clock
disposed upon
said integrated
circuit
substrate
(Row 28)
Providing a 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,
wherein the variable speed clock is:
(1) non-controllable; and (2)
variable based on the temperature,
voltage, and process parameters in
the environment
Providing a 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

As demonstrated by the chart above, despite the differences in claim language, each side
has respectively proposed parallel constructions for Rows 23, 19 and 28 with common
limitations.2 In their claim construction briefs, Defendants never even suggested the possibility of
different limitations for Rows 23, 19 and 28 based on their different claim language.
But below, Defendants now take the new position that the differences in claim language
among these rows (i.e., “ring oscillator variable speed system clock” versus “oscillator” or
“variable speed clock”) affect the disputed common limitations. The chart above, however, belies
any contention that these differences are significant. By belatedly relying on the differences in
the claim language, Defendants now raise the possibility that each of the three terms has a
different meaning. For that reason, the construction of all three is required, though Plaintiffs
believe the differences in their claim language are not significant to the disputed common
limitations and that the common arguments will be determinative for all three.
Defendants are proposing below that Rows 23, 19 and 28 be left completely unconstrued,
even as to the dispute over whether the claimed “entire” ring oscillator variable speed system
clock/oscillator/variable speed clock “directly rel[ies] on a command input control signal or an
external crystal/clock generator to generate a clock signal.” But rather than explain why Rows
19, 23 and 28 do not require any construction, Defendants’ position below includes elaborate
claim construction arguments respecting Rows 19, 23 and 28 that are not found in their claim
construction briefs. Ironically, Defendants’ new claim construction arguments merely highlight
the importance of construing Rows 19, 23 and 28 together, although this joint statement is not the
place for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ new arguments.
Given the disputes apparent from both the table above and Defendants’ new arguments
below, Defendants’ position appears intended to stymie the Court’s consideration of whether
Defendants’ disclaimers made to the USPTO apply to these parallel terms as proposed by the
Plaintiffs in their claim construction brief. Plaintiffs believe that Rows 19, 23 and 28 need to be
2 During meet-and-confer, Defendants proposed that Row 19, “an entire oscillator . . . ,” be
construed, and Row 23 and 28 have constructions parallel to Row 19. Hence, at least during
meet-and-confer, it appeared that there was no dispute that Rows 19, 23 and 28 should have
parallel constructions with common limitations.
construed together in light of Defendants’ disclaimers to properly resolve the claim construction
disputes on these claim phrases.
Defendants’ Position Regarding Additional Terms:
C. Remaining Dispute on Terms For Construction. Defendants believe that
construction of the ten terms set forth above is sufficient, and comports with this Court’s October
5, 2011 Order that “the total terms identified by all parties as most significant cannot exceed 10. .
Defendants do not agree that three claim phrases (Rows 19, 23, and 28) should only count as one
under the guise of “parallel” terms with undefined “common limitations.”3 The construction of
these terms will necessarily vary because the terms themselves use different words.4 Defendants’
likewise reject Plaintiffs attempt to limit any one of these different terms to a clock that is noncontrollable
and variable based on the environment.
Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, Defendants never made a disclaimer during the
reexamination proceedings. Plaintiffs mistakenly rely on a statement by the examiner (and not
the patent owner) in an interview summary from the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,598,148
(“the ‘148 patent”).5 Notably, the Plaintiffs seek to apply their “examiner disclaimer” theory to
the term “an entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock in said single integrated circuit,”
which is not even in the claims of the ‘148 patent, but is instead found in the ‘336 patent that was
already issued at the time the alleged “examiner disclaimer” occurred.
The parties have been ordered by the Court not to exceed 10 significant terms, and though
Plaintiffs may find it difficult to do so, counting numerous different terms as one is neither fair
nor compliant with the order. Thus, Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ efforts to expand the number
3 Defendants offered to have the construction of Row 19 apply to Rows 23 and 28 for the limited
issue of “[t]he main dispute in Row 19[, which] is whether an oscillator located entirely on the
same semiconductor substrate as the CPU does not directly rely on a command input control
signal, or merely does not rely on a control signal. Defendants remain willing to stipulate that the
construction of Row 19 on this issue will apply to Row 28, as well as to Row 23.” Email from N.
Joesten to K. Chen, Apr. 4, 2011 (emphasis added) (attached as Ex. A to Declaration of Nan E.
Joesten).
4 The doctrine of claim differentiation dictates that different claims with different language have
different meaning, and should not be inferred to have the same construction because of some
misguided notion of “parallel terms.”
5 This issue has already been briefed by the parties, and Defendants believe it is inappropriate to
repeat those arguments in a Joint Claim Construction Statement.
of significant terms beyond 10, and urge that 10 is sufficient.

IV. ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING

A claim construction hearing has been scheduled for January 27, 2012. A tutorial has
been scheduled for January 20, 2012.

V. WITNESSES FOR THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING

Defendants do not currently plan to call any fact or expert witness to testify live at the
claim construction hearing. Defendants’ expert, Dr. Vojin Oklobdzija, may submit testimony in
rebuttal to evidence or argument advanced by Plaintiffs in connection with the claim construction
process, including in rebuttal to any expert testimony submitted by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs Acer and HTC do not plan to call witnesses to testify live at the claim
construction hearing, but will have their expert witnesses, Dr. Andrew Wolfe and Dr. David May,
respectively, available should the Court believe that such testimony would be useful in resolving
the disputed terms between the parties. Acer and HTC may submit declarations from Dr. Wolfe
and/or Dr. May in connection with claim construction briefing and will provide a summary of
their expert opinions as part of Exhibit C.
Respectfully submitted,
[SIGNATURE BLOCKS ON NEXT PAGE]
Dated: November 18, 2011 AGILITY IP LAW, LLP
By: /s/ James C. Otteson
James C. Otteson
Michelle Breit
Eugene Y. Mar
Agility IP Law, LLP
149 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Attorneys for Technology Properties Ltd.
and Alliacense Ltd.
Dated: November 18, 2011 KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE LLP
By: ______/S/ Charles Hoge______________
Charles T. Hoge, Esq.
Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge LLP
350 Tenth Avenue
Suite 1300
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Patriot Scientific Corp.
Dated: November 18, 2011 BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
By: /s/ Edward Runyan
Edward K. Runyan, Esq.
Baker & McKenzie
130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Attorneys for Barco, N.V.
Dated: November 18, 2011 COOLEY LLP
By: /s/ Kyle Chen
Kyle D. Chen, Esq.
Heidi L. Keefe, Esq.
Mark R. Weinstein, Esq.
Cooley LLP
3000 El Camino Real
Five Palo Alto Square, 4th Floor
Palo Alto, California 94306
Attorneys for HTC Corporation and HTC
America, Inc.
Dated: November 18, 2011 K&L GATES LLP
By: /s/ Timothy Walker
Timothy P. Walker, Esq.
Harold H. Davis, Jr., Esq.
Jas Dhillon, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Ratioff
K&L Gates LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attorneys for Acer, Inc., Acer America
Corp. and Gateway, Inc.

ATTESTATION PER GENERAL ORDER 45

I, Kyle Chen, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
Stipulation. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that the counsel listed
above have concurred with this filing.
Dated: November 18, 2011
988275