As I'm no techie, I've refrained from commenting too much on the Markman ruling and the language in dispute, but after reading the ruling, and reading the related prior brief that the plaintiffs had presented, I'd like to ask those who are more knowledgeable in these areas if my understanding is in the ballpark. I realize I post this at the risk of exposing my techno-ignoramousness, lol.

For starters, it seems the '336 ring oscillator unresolved issue is still critical and will be hugely impactful. And while many of the other terms seem to have been construed in our favor (mainly meaning more broadly, than more specific if I understand correctly), as I read it, they may be rendered moot if the ring oscillator issue goes against us. Is that what others see?

Secondly, with respect to the ring oscillator issue, it seems to me that the plaintiff's (T3) want to argue that the MMP designed invention, while admitting it allows the CPU to operate at its maximum abilities by not limiting its abilities by an outside input, is essentially an unimportant bystander in the computer as they're arguing that WE argued that there is no way to control it, where as these other patents, Talbot, and others, were using inputs such as voltage, or a crystal, to control the clock. Obviously, they don't believe that, but want to "construe" that argument presented in order to limit the application of the MMP.

Again, forgive me if I'm not understanding correctly, but the beauty of the invention as I understand it is that by putting it on the same substrate, it allows the CPU to operate at its maximum performance because the clock is now in the same environment as the CPU. Therefore, this allows the focus to be put on controlling and enhancing the environment (ie, temperature, voltage, etc.), rather than trying to create a faster clock to time the CPU. By enhancing the environment, you automatically enhance the clock and the CPU.

Granted, that may not be the perfect explanation or understanding, so I would ask that anyone that can correct me or clarify for me, please do. Ultimately, what I understand is that the MMP ring oscillator is essentially ALWAYS ON, and always available to provide this enhanced peak performance.

IMO, it seems similar to the difference between 4WD and AWD on a car. For example, on a 4WD car, someone has to actually turn a switch in order for the car to operate in 4WD. Otherwise, that "input" or lack thereof, "limits" the abilty of the car to operate at its peak even though it's equipped with the ability to use 4WD.

On and AWD car, there is NO specific or directy INPUT needed by the driver turning a switch. The environment dictates whether the car switches into 4WD mode, or remains in 2WD mode. If there is slippery pavement, the car automatically senses this and begins to operate accordingly. It's not limited to staying in 2WD, and not using the peak performance of the AWD capacity of the car.

Therefore, while the T3 are arguing the language must include "non-controllable", when in fact, the MMP ring oscillator IS controllable, but only by the environmental factors wherein it lies, AND by the upper end of the CPU performance. In my understanding, this differentiates us from Talbot and the like because they REQUIRED this external input to provide the performance, and were limited by that external input in the event it was less than the CPU peak performance threshold. Whereas, the MMP ALLOWS for maximum performance regardless of the external inputs. A more proper term, and I think this is more FAVORABLE to us would be NON-LIMITABLE except by the CPUs peformance capacity itself.

Any EE's or Techies that can shed light? Confirm or deny? Dissect and correct? TIA