The speed of all microprocessors is governed by timing control signals called clocks.
Requiring processors to perform operations in cycles timed to a specific frequency allows them to operate in concert with other components. Up until Messrs. Moore and Fish’s invention, timing control was achieved through the use of crystals that could be caused to resonate and produce an oscillating signal used as a clock. However, the use of crystals was fundamentally limited because crystals cannot be located on the chip with the CPU and because crystals cannot be processed with enough precision to produce frequencies higher than roughly 30 MHz. In other words, without an advance in clocking technology, processor performance would have been stuck at the level the 1989 Intel 486 processor. Without the additional speed found in today’s microprocessors, operations like watching a video, surfing the Internet and other now common activities would be impossible.

The ’336 patent solves the external crystal speed barrier by moving the clock onto the
same chip as the CPU. However, due to manufacturing limitations, a crystal cannot be moved on chip; the inventors needed another structure. They selected a known structure that had not been used to clock CPUs in the past, known as a ring oscillator. A ring oscillator is a circuit that receives a voltage or current input that passes through multiple inverters and then loops back on itself to cause the current or voltage to oscillate between a high and low state with a specific periodicity or frequency. This results in a wave pattern of highs and lows in which faster frequencies are represented by faster oscillations between the high and low states.

That said and borrowed the above from a techy.

In 2008 ptsc was sued by HTC and Acer. Two companies from the REPUBLIC OF CHINA. we won infringement from HTC by a jury of 9 members in the northern district of Calif. The problem as I see it Judge Gildea completely agreed with Acer and HTC lawyers. He even stated our microprocessor design adjusted frequency rather than generate frequency,. As ruled by the jury in Calif and our patents, which incidentally have been reexamined 17 times. The latter thanks to Acer and HTC and perhaps a desire to burn us out of business and run out the clock on our patent. We had 2 parallel markman decisions by 2 federal judges and a completely different ruling from the ITC judge which primarily followed the HTC and Acer lawyers. We are just hoping on a non partisan appeal free of politics on our next go round with the ITC.