So, after reading both Judge Ware's first claim construction and then Judge Grewal's final claim construction, I can't find anywhere in the documents where it says the "entire variable speed ring oscillator clock does not rely on an external crystal clock or command input control signal." The construction is as follows: "Providing a variable speed clock that is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the central processing unit." There may be other issues at the center of the dispute and Judge Ware does say he declines to construct the portion non-reliance on an external crystal clock generator. He doesn't specifically say that, but he does refer to the "external reference signal" so the external crystal is implied. Judge Ware's entire decision on this claim construction phrase is below. I welcome others to do analysis on the external crystal clock issue we ran into at the ITC and variable based on process, voltage, and temperature (PVT). It looks like the core issue at the NDoC will not be the reliance on an external crystal clock, but the quantity of variability in the clocking based on PVT and the dead band, etc., and I base that on the exhibits filed by TPL to counter the MSJ. If we beat the MSJ the unpredictable nature of a jury becomes interesting. Trying to justify to the wife flying out to San Fran to view the trial. <<<<>>>>providing an entire variable speed clock disposed upon said integrated circuit substrate, said variable speed clock being constructed of a second plurality of transistors; clocking said central processing unit at a clock rate using said variable speed clock with said central processing unit being clocked by said variable speed clock at a variable frequency dependent upon variation in one or more fabrication or operational parameters associated with said integrated circuit substrate, said processing frequency and said clock rate varying in the same way relative to said variation in said one or more fabrication or operational parameters associated with said integrated circuit substrate; connecting an on-chip input/output interface between said central processing unit and an off-chip external memory bus, and exchanging coupling control signals, addresses and data between said input/output interface and said central processing unit; and clocking said input/output interface using an off-chip external clock wherein said off-chip external clock is operative at a frequency independent of a clock frequency of said variable speed clock and wherein a clock signal from said off-chip external clock originates from a source other than said variable speed clock.<<<<>>>> The parties have tendered for construction the phrase “providing an entire variable speed clock disposed upon said integrated circuit substrate.” There are two issues that are tendered with respect to this language. First, there is a dispute over whether the “variable speed clock” should be defined as limited to a ring oscillator. Here, the Court observes that, in other claims, the inventor discusses a “ring oscillator” as a variable speed system clock. Nonetheless, with respect to this Claim, the Court declines to limit the broader phrase found in Claim 10 to a ring oscillator only. Second, the parties tender a dispute over the degree of independence between the signal of the “variable speed clock” and any external reference signal. However, upon review the Court finds that this dispute is not pertinent to the construction of the tendered phrase. Accordingly, the Court construes “providing an entire variable speed clock disposed upon said integrated circuit substrate” to mean: Providing a variable speed clock that is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the central processing unit.

my thoughts exactly....