Just got on line and noted that you suggest I may have more to offer in the way of (ignorant) opinion on the "varying together" thing.

Surprisely (to me at least! LOL), I have two things to add to the post to which this replies.

First, try adding a couple of words to the Court's construction to see clarity.  "increasing and decreasing proportionately" TO MAINTAIN A CONSISTENT PACE.

Second, I suggested that "I'm thinking that their "angle" here had to do with whether it matters that the CPU and clock are co-located as opposed to being separated.  It does matter, or such is suggested via adoption of this approach by infringers. If it didn't matter, the patent claims would have been seriously weakened IMO (like eliminated in this regard)."   To clarify what I'm thinking is that the defendants wanted an interpretation that rendered this claim moot.  If it doesn't matter whether the ring oscillator and CPU are co-located or separated (clock off the substrate), then this stipulation doesn't matter, and the specification becomes too broad and therefore unenforceable.  It's like the thing we discussed way back (a whole month or two ago! One of the many times you've straightenned me out!), the defendants want the broadest possible interpretation while we want an appropriately narrow intrepretation.  If they had gotten their desired "1:1", directly and absolutely exact same change in increase/decrease interpretation, it would mean that the clock could be located anywhere, and the overall patent would be too broad in scope.   BUT IT AIN'T!

I clearly KNOW nuttin', but I got the "proportionately" thing right (likely because it was obvious), so I'm stupidly thinking I might actually have a clue.  Now I'll STFU and leave it to the people that really do have a clue - like your Dad!  A very special Father's Day wish to him for his contributions!

SGE