"It might be argued that fixing the frequency is not the same as providing a reference signal, which is always what was being claimed at the time.
If they can pull sufficient background to back up what fixing a frequency actually means, they might have a shot.

The whole thing turns on the meaning of fixing.
The meaning of it may well depend on the context in which it is used. If used in relation to the CPU clock, the meaning ought to be CPU frequency is a fixed frequency and the frequency is fixed by the external clock.
I'm sure that is what was intended to be disclaimed. Only question is whether we accidentally disclaimed more.

I assume the reason Grewal is using the term "fixed" is because it was used by plaintiffs at the PTO. Otherwise where did it come from? So it was probably used.
But the meaning should have been understood as described previously, within the appropriate context, and not meaning something more than that.

You shouldn't define a term using some broad interpretation if that was not the intent based on the context it was used. And the way Grewal framed it, he sort of made it sound like we surrendered more than we had to at the PTO.

If that is the case, and it is clear that the examiner would have approved had we not used "fixed" in the reply, and instead used the terminology used by judge Ward, then insisting on a broader meaning here simply deprives the patent owner of his rights, for no real reason."

I hope our side fights like lions ... and the Judge indemnifies this huge mistake.