It doesn't really matter on the overall design. The point is the ring oscillator is a building block. It is a corner stone of any microprocessor clocking system design. What you posted and are reading about is like the entire building. All of those types of articles are buildings. They do not get into the detail of how the PLLs are built and those PLLs use ring oscillators for clocking as a corner stone within the building. The issue isn't the design of modern day microprocessors per se, it comes down to a "philisophical" question in my opinion about the ring oscillator "relying" or "referencing" the external clock to drive the clocking of the microprocessor. If the Judge believes the "entire" chip clock includes the off chip crystal then we will lose. If the Judge believes the ring oscillator is the "entire" system clock then we will win.<><><><><>Virtually all modern day microprocessors use ring oscillators. That is not the issue at the ITC. The issue is about the ring oscillator "relying on" or "referencing" an external crystal to generate a clock signal. Referencing = good, Relying = bad. Another data point is in the original 336 patent prosecution history. Moore and Fish did disclaim "reliance" on an external crystal/clock generator/control signal to drive the clock of the microprocessor, although that microprocessor the USPTO was using to compare the 336 was the, I believe, Motorola 68000 type of the 1980s, which did not use PLLs or PLLs with ring oscillators inside them and was old. How broad of a disclaimer will the judge determine was made by Moore and Fish when saying "Entire" variable speed ring oscillator system clcok. That is the question.