Thanks for posting it as you always promptly do for us.

HTC wanted to change this - “entire variable speed clock” (in claims 10 and 16) are properly understood to exclude any externalclock used to generate a signal to clock the CPU."

to this - “entire variable speed clock” (in claims 10 and 16) are properly understood to exclude any externalclock used to generate the signal used to clock the CPU."

At first and second readings, I had no clue on what they were trying to do. Read it again after a long lunch, I finally realize something significant. Here is what I think -

We had external clock in 366 for clocking the i/o devices (low speed stuff compare to cpu). HTC's external crystal clock (or clocks) also do the same, but in addition, it send control signals to PLL to limit the variation of clocking rate of the ring oscillator with in PLL. Their hope (or trick) is that if they can convince the juries that the external clock is clocking the cpu (or contributed in clocking the cpu), then the "entire" phrase won't apply, since external crystal clock is outside of substrate that has both CPU and PLL/ring oscillator.

Changing the "a" to "the" and added "used" is an attempt for narrowing the focus of juries and limiting the freedom of our lawyers to present the broader topic in clocking in general. For example, if our lawyer tries to say that a signal generated by external crystal clock is for clocking the i/o devices, but a signal generated by ring oscillator is for clocking the CPU, our lawyer is talking about two 'a's, not the single 'the' (" the signal used to clock the CPU.) In not long ago, the external crystal clock's sole purpose is for clocking i/o. To get around 336 patent, companies try to also use it to get arround of 336 patent by tieing it to (PLL the) cpu clocking. By talking about evolution of cpu/io clocking, it will be easier for juries to understand the issue and find the truth.

I do agree as other posters have sad, HTC is a little desperate now. If they cannot find a gun, a dead branch from a tree will do (teeth are gone but the naill will do?!).

Another thought - with the trial this close, why should we discuss this? Why not sit tight and just wait for the verdict? My thinking - in a large context, we are all juries. Anyone of use can be picked as the juries for this trial (kind of). If not you and me, they are just people like you and me. We have followed 366 patent for all this years; read numerous techy/non-tecky stuff about it. If we cannot say what infringe the patent and what not, or if what Mr. O said (and other evidences) cannot make our mind as to how accuse products infringe 366 patent, our case might be hopeless. Judge by the quality of our discussions, I have better hope today than yesterday. That makes me feel good.

Good Luck for all.