I was trying to get an answer as to where the original clock signal (the first clock signal to CPU) come from. More clues are found in recent SD and this new motion. IMHO, HTC is trying to find the last straw before sinking towards the bottom. It seems their lawyers are admitting the clock signal supplied to CPU is originated from the ring oscilator, not the independent external clock. In the SD, their were defeated when they argued that "under the amended claims, the claim is narrower and therefore substantively different". The court find "that the amendments really were for clarification purposes only, TPL’s argument is more persuasive."

Now it's safe to say that before the external clock can generate the first clocking signal and the PLL to multiply the freqence 100 time and use the raised freqence to limit (to buffer) the variation of clocking rate, the ring oscillator is already clcokng the cpu and is in a dead zone (PLL does not alter the ring oscillator rate). Defendents is giving up on this. Now they use the phase relationship as the last straw and make it an emergency issue. To say in another way, they are losing more ground (bullets) now and try to find a stone to throw at us.

SD from the court: “TPL amended claim 1 to further describe the “second clock independent of said ring oscillator” to say that “wherein a clock signal of said clock originates from a source other than said ring oscillator variable speed system clock.” Claim 6 was amended to describe the “off-chip external clock” to likewise derive its “clock signal” “from a source other than said oscillator.” Claim 10 includes a similar amendment that adds that the “off-chip external clock” has a “clock signal” that “originates form a source other than said variable speed clock.” Claims 6 and 10 also added “off-chip” references to the descriptions of the second clocks. Claims 11, 13, and 16 were based on independent claims 1, 6, and 10, but during reexamination TPL added an additional clause to the end of each claim: “wherein said central processing unit operates asynchronously to said input/output interface.”
SD from the court: “On balance, the court finds that the amended claim language added during reexamination did not substantively amend the asserted ’336 claims’ scope. “Independent” in the disputed claims must be understood to be just that: without dependence of any kind. While HTC offers a more nuanced interpretation that focuses exclusively on frequency control, it cites no intrinsic – or for that matter extrinsic evidence – to support its position. Coupled with the references in the prosecution history indicating that the amendments really were for clarification purposes only, TPL’s argument is more persuasive. “

HTC emergency argument: "Because a clock with signal origins from the ring oscillator but with an independent frequency could exist uner the original claims but not under the amendedclaims, the claim is narrower and therefore substantively different. For claims 11, 13, and 16, the “independent” clock signals could have a “readily predictable phase relationship.” Because of that possibility, the claims are narrower and thereby substantively different. Further, the court should not credit self-serving testimony from the prosecution history".