< The Respondents are attempting to argue that the external crystal actually is part of the variable speed system clock, which is not part of the silicon substrate that houses the ring oscillator and CPU.>

I think the above explantion is a fair depiction.In our Markman reply brief we gave quite a bit of attention to the ability to use the off chip crystal. It would appear that the construction of "entire" is very narrowly construed, hence the motion for SD.

One would hope that the recent Markman correction is adding some flexibility to the construction a la Judge Ward. I would think that the ALJ would have to have some very good reasons to narrow Judge Ward's interpretation.

<Respondents intentionally misstate the facts when they assert that their construction “largely mirrors” Judge Ward’s construction from the Texas litigation. As Respondents concede, they omit from Judge Ward’s construction the crucial words “directly” and “command input” which greatly tempered the construction to provide only that the claimed ring oscillator “does not directly rely on a command input control signal or an external crystal/clock generator to generate a clock signal.”>

Opty