<So I believe the "variable speed clock ..." phrase would possibly become subject to amendment if the ruling does not go our way.>

The court already declined to construe that as being a ring oscillator variable speed clock. The court will apply the meaning of ring oscillator to all claims in suit that use the term. That is what will happen because that is what is stated in the Markman. Are you suggesting that the court is going to undo what it already construed, even though the term ring oscillator is not in the claim?

<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>

You stated something similar before, and you are again misrepresenting it as something the present court is going to do. The footnote is only a reference to the arguments being made by the plaintiffs. The court ruled on this issue in our favor. Are you suggesting that the court ruled but is now going to look into it further? Isn't that backwards?

<The parties have drawn the Court’s attention to a related term that was construed by Judge Ward and that was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Judge Ward’s construction related to phrases such as “instruction groups” and “operand” in Claim 29 of the ‘584 Patent. See Tech. Props. Ltd., 514 F. Supp. 2d at 931-34. The claims of the ‘584 Patent deal specifically with an embodiment that includes “variable width operands.” (See ‘584 Patent, Col. 16:7-26.) This particular embodiment requires all operands to be right justified in the instruction register so that the microprocessor can quickly locate the operands of variable width without the need “to specify the different operand sizes.” (See ‘584 Patent, Col. 16:24-26.) However, unlike Claim 29 of the ‘584 Patent, Claim 1 of the ‘749 Patent does not contain such phrases. Thus, the Court does not find Judge Ward’s construction pertinent. Because the Court finds that the language of the claim has been used with its plain and ordinary meaning, the Court declines to further construe it.23>

Opty