Here is my earlier post on the topic:

EDOT vs. ITC vs. NDOC "entire" Markman rulings compared:

The term to be constructed:

“an entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock in said
integrated circuit”

EDOT Construction

"Accordingly, the Court construes the term to mean “a ring oscillator variable speed system clock that is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU and does not directly rely on a command input control signal or an external crystal/clock generator to generate a clock signal.”

This was not the best construction because it is kind of confusing and we would have to have gotten very technical with a jury which would increase the risks of a loss. Basically Judge Ward looked at the prior art Magar which has an off chip crystal the frequency of which ends up timing the CPU and he wanted to make sure our claims would not be allowed to cover that prior art. I think the key wiggle room for our claims being able to use an off chip reference is the bolded words "does not directly rely". This means the off chip crystals signal cannot be the one that times the CPU in itself but does not preclude an off chip reference from being claimed by us.

NDOC Construction

"Providing a variable speed clock that is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the central processing unit."

This is by far the clearest and best least limiting construction we could get and just about exactly the one we asked for. No difficult explaining to do to a jury of lay people and the opposition will not be able to argue that an that any off chip influence on the clocking of the CPU means they do not infringe because it was not added as a "limitation" to the wording. So if you have a ring oscillator that generates a signal that goes on to clock the CPU that is capable of varying based on manufacturing process, voltage or temperature you infringe. Anything you want to add to your microprocessor after that does not let you get off infringement. So you can bolt on a PLL or use an off chip crystal/reference and still infringe.


ITC Construction

“an oscillator that is located entirely on the same
substrate as the central processing unit and does not rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator to generate a clock signal”.

This is the most difficult construction we got to prove infringement. The "does not rely" wording appears to preclude any direct or indirect off chip influences of any kind on the on chip signal that goes not to clock the CPU. At least in the EDOT we had the "does not DIRECTLY rely" wording to work with.