Thanks for that. I would like to see the original proposed claim constructions by the defendants and plaintiffs in Texas to see what we were arguing. The PLL and non-PLL based systems commentary is certainly interesting. Maybe the MSD will be granted in part for all PLL based systems, because the argument the big companies are making is that PLL based systems rely on an external crystal to drive the voltage controlled ring oscillator, which in turn drives the CPU. Does the PLL based system "rely" on an external crystal or reference the external crystal like a metronome? If the accused products are non PLL-based, then I think they would incorporate the 336. The question is do the majority of infringing products use non PLL-based architectures.

I think this is the crux of the issue and we'll see soon enough.