Re: BARCO case on PLL's - Ease
in response to
by
posted on
Jun 09, 2013 04:36PM
"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."
Could the question in the Judge's mind be influenced by the "Intent" of the inventor?...The inventor provided a Disclaimer, per your above statetment. IMO, by providing a Disclaimer, Moore/Fish is conveying an understanding of the issue at hand, in layman's terms, "We used the crystal as a reference item but don't depend on it to drive the clock, per se", providing the Disclaimer. Additionally, TPL will have the inventor in the court to further clarify any doubts in the Judge's mind.
Alternately, the qustion could be asked, (1)"If you don't need the crystal to drive the clock, then why do you use the crystal?", "Because it's there- proximity?"...(2)"OR Did you just need something to drive the clock and the crystal was just the most efficient way to drive the clock?" "Why did you use the crystal and not something else - unavailability of a different power source?" Sounds close to "relying", IMO. If it doesn't "rely", then why did you use it specifically?..i.e. the Crystal? Did you have an alternative to using the Crystal?, If so, what? And why didn't you use "It"? Efficiency? Location? Unavailability?"...
Moore must provide the answer to distinguish his verifiable written thought process leading him to use the crystal, and just use it as a "reference item" and not relying on it, in the absolute, to drive the clock. Obviously, he has a reason issueing a "Disclaimer", so he IMO anticipated this specific question years earlier. Hopefully, he has a relatively common sense persuadable explanation to the Judge. Thoughts?.. Virt