I can categorically say I reviewed the process, temperature and voltage issue with my EE contact prior to this ruling and that statement is fine.

I guarantee the opposing legal counsel tucked non-controllable in between odd inverters .. and process, temperature and voltage to try and make it more palatable for the judges. Survey says? XXX

It looks like a lot of posters who want to trade and are afraid of missing a boat are attempting to hang their hat on a statement that does not harm us at all. The ring oscillator clock in claim one states it is dependent on manufacturing process, temperature and voltage. It says it explicitly, so you either understand that or you don't. Not to mention the beauty of the variable speed ring oscillator is that it automatically adjusts it speed to manufacturing process, temperature and voltage.

There is a specific statement that TPL makes in its claim construction arguement where they argue the ring oscillator can not be non-controllable and run at a speed based on temperature, voltage and process as they are contradictory. They actually state in their claim construction argument that the clock is controlled by temperature, voltage and process, therefore it is not non-controllab.e

If you CTRL F "non-controllable" in TPL's claim construction arguement you will find the above point documented.