Taken from Judge Grewel's recommendation..

With respect to Magar, the examiner initially rejected the claims after noting that certain circuitry in Magar was fabricated on the same microprocessor substrate as the CPU, as required by the claims. The applicants then attempted to distinguish Magar by emphasizing that the clock disclosed in Magar was fixed by a crystal that was external to the microprocessor, unlike their on-chip variable speed clock:
[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art should readily recognize that the speed of the CPU and clock do not vary together due to manufacturing variation, operating voltage, and temperature of the IC in the Magar processor . . . This is simply because the Magar microprocessor clock is frequency controlled by a crystal which is also external to the microprocessor. Crystals are by design fixed frequency devices whose oscillation speed is designed to be tightly controlled and to vary minimally due to variations in manufacturing, operating voltage and temperature. The Magar microprocessor in no way contemplates a variable speed clock as claimed.10
In the same amendment, the applicants also argued that the Magar clock could not practice the claimed invention because of its reliance on a crystal, which by its nature cannot vary its oscillation frequency:

The examiner similarly issued an initial rejection in view of Sheets. In response, the applicants distinguished their “present invention” from microprocessors that rely on frequency control information from an external source:
The present invention does not similarly rely upon provision of frequency control information to an external clock, but instead contemplates providing a ring oscillator clock and the microprocessor within the same integrated circuit. The placement of these elements within the same integrated circuit obviates the need for provision of the type of frequency control information described by Sheets, since the microprocessor and clock will naturally tend to vary commensurately in speed as a function of various parameters (e.g., temperature) affecting circuit performance..

In an attempt to avoid any confusion,he used his own wording, in his recommendation.

...(Seems clear, but ,,clever wordsmiths might conflate and confuse anyway)..

"Because these statements would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as disclaiming certain scope of the disputed “entire oscillator” term, the court RECOMMENDS construction of the term to reflect this disclaimer, as follows: “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"....

Have a pleasant day..