I wasn't going to comment ... but, the ring oscillator issue would certainly affect the dependent claims of the 336 if the definition was adversely changed, or claim 1 was ruled invalid due to the Talbot prior art. So I believe the "variable speed clock ..." phrase would possibly become subject to amendment if the ruling does not go our way. I'm almost positive Judge Ware says that "dependent terms" (paraphrasing) would incorporate any updates. I remember reading either online or from one of your posts about the burden of proof required to rule a claim invalid in the courts as being difficult due to the high bar. This is a good thing.

I don't believe any ruling on the 336 would affect the portions of the 749 or 890 that we are asserting against the plaintiffs, as the technology being disputed is different regarding microprocessor architecture.

Just in case many here missed it, there is another footnote (27 on page 11 I believe) that speaks of the "right justified" term (749 patent) and the court wanting further briefings regarding how that term was discussed at the USPTO.