As Judge Ward did in Texas on at least one claim, Judge Grewall could have opted to not construct it at all, and deemed it was adequate as it was, and left the controllable / noncontrollable argument something to determine at trial. What would the "contingent" outcome be in that case?

And in fact, I think in a sense non-controlloable still could be argued at trial by the infringers, though, IMO, the construction the Judge came up with, implies that since it variable based on temperature, voltage and process parameters, it IS controllable by controlling those variables. And as I understand the invention, that's the genius in it in that it's only limited by those variables, which also limit the processor and thus allows the clock to operate as fast as necessary.

Still, the lawyers may think a Jury might not be able to discern the difference so if it ever gets that far, it wouldn't surprise me to hear they attempted to make that argument. To be clear, I think they (infringers) would lose royally in that argument.