So a while back I posted Judge Ware's claim construction issued in June of 2012. The "Entire Variable Speed Clock" portion was determind under Judge Ware's governance of the case. You will notice that Judge Ware ruled on this issue and you will also notice TPL's proposed claim construction in bold italics which I posted below. The main issue for this argument was the non-controllable and variable based on the temperature, voltage, and process parameters in the environment, not the "Entire Variable Speed System Clock."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

H. The Proper Construction of “Providing an Entire Variable Speed Clock Disposed Upon Said Integrated Circuit Substrate” (’336 Patent). TPL Win

T3: providing an entire variable speed clock disposed upon said integrated circuit substrate

providing a variable speed 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, wherein the variable speed clock is: (1) noncontrollable; and (2) variable based on the temperature, voltage, and process parameters in the environment

TPL: providing a 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

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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

TPL argued that an "Entire Variable Speed System Clock ... and does not directly rely on a command input control signal or an external crystal/clock generator to generate a clock signal..."

We actually argued in front of Judge Ware for the very same thing we are now arguing against in front of Judge Gildea. Why you ask? Because the ITC venue (Judge Gildea) is all about infringement and the Respondents are making the argument that the variable speed ring oscillator system clock relies on an external crystal/control signal to clock the microprocessors. Short of seeing the actual block diagrams of the would be infringing chips, it would be hard to say if summary judgement should be granted or denied in this case. As far as I'm aware a variable speed ring oscillator system clock does not rely on an external crystal/control signal to generate the clock frequency.

The Respondents' expert says that a modern day microprocessor does rely on an external source to be part of the variable speed system clock. We say it does not. What is interesting is that Judge Gildea used Judge Ward's construction for "ring oscillator." Judge Gildea spends a lot of time, and I mean a lot of pages, validating his reasoning for adopting the Respondents' proposed claim construction.

What will be interesting is if Judge Gildea will agree with the Respondents that all modern day microprocessors rely on an external crystal/control signal to clock the microprocessor. The funny thing to me is that in the Northern California litigation, we actually argued to include the "...does not directly rely on an external crystal/control signal..." as long as the ring oscillator was not considered "noncontrollable" and did not vary based on "...process, voltage and temperature ..."

So at the ITC we won for the ring oscillator to exclude both the "noncontrollable" and "process, voltage and temperature" statements. Would someone like Judge Grewal at the Northern California venue, who was an IP attorney and understands microprocessor architecture, would buy into the argument that the ring oscillator variable speed system clock if provided power actually relies on an external crystal/control signal. So if we lose at the ITC what is the impact in California? I don't know and this is truly a technical and legal mental marathon.

Lastly, Judge Gildea removed the "directly relies" portion from his "Entire Variable Speed System Clock" and added just "rely" because he believes one skilled in the art would understand the meaning, so no "directly" portion would be required.

The question now is how are modern day microprocessors is architected and does Judge Gildea believe the variable speed ring oscillator clocks the CPU and then any connection offchip has a frequency that goes into a phase locked loop to be divided down so the microprocessor can communicate effectively offchip, or does Judge Gildea believe the offchip crystal/control signal is what is actually clocking the microprocessor. I personally believe it is the former but I'm no expert.