FWIW - Here is the RECOMMENDATION - “an [oscillator] located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the [central processing unit] that does not require a control signal and whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal.”

I agree that Grewal's trip down memory lane sounds somewhat ominous, but it seems to me that he is just providing some background by walking us through previous narrowing concesssions our side made over the course of EDOT & ITC cases. That does not to my eyes mean that the language of the recommendation above is limiting in and of itself. On the contrary - the infringing community had always wanted language in there that ties back to an external signal whereas in the above verbiage I don't see anything other than a stand-alone invention that is not influenced by anything other than its own environment. Corrections welcome.