From the PACER:
"We affirm the district court’s construction that an “entire
oscillator” is one “whose frequency is not fixed by any
external crystal.”
So no external crystal at all doing anything to change the on chip oscillators frequency. Well that rules out all infringing chips because they use PLL and external crystals imo. The problem here is PTSC already said that this construction lead them to stipulate non infringement. That construction was approved by the appeals court.
From the PACER:
"None of these statements disclaim an entire oscillator
receiving a command input for any purpose. Every time
the patentee mentioned a “control signal” or “command
input,” it did so only in the context of using a command
input to modify the frequency of the CPU clock. This
understanding is consistent with the patentee’s characterization
of the benefits of its invention. It argued that by
placing the CPU and CPU clock on the same silicon
substrate, the frequencies of both “automatically vary
together.” J.A. 2094. This eliminates the need for a
command input to change clock frequency. As the patentee
explained, “the oscillator or variable speed clock varies
in frequency but does not require manual or programmed
inputs or external or extra components to do so.” Id.
We hold that an “entire oscillator” is one “that does
not require a command input to change the clock frequency.”
III"
Ok so the district court made an error here and command inputs are indeed allowed in the 336 patent JUST NOT ONES THAT CHANGE THE CLOCK FREQUENCY which all the infringing chips do with a PLL to stabilize the clock frequency to a certain level. This will inevitably change the clock frequency which is initially generated on the chip.
Basically the appeals court said the district court got it half right which is enough for you to likely lose as they said in their conclusion but the half that was changed by the appeal does not help you much either in my opinion. That is why the judges said this (my bolding):
III. CONCLUSION
We hold that “an entire oscillator disposed upon said
integrated circuit substrate” is “an oscillator located
entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the
central processing unit that does not require a command
input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal.” Although this minor
modification to the district court’s construction likely does
not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties
stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s
construction, the proper course of action is for us to vacate
and remand. We vacate the district court’s construction
and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED"
At any rate it is very bad news for PTSC. If only their lawyer could have better articulated your argument. The whole key to the 336 that made it inventive was GENERATING the initial clocking signal. Your lawyer maybe mentioned this in passing at the end of his argument. Pretty incompetent. From here it will go back to the district court who will make the minor change in claim construction and you likely still lose because the district court decision had to be totally wrong for you to win. Then maybe PTSC requests an "en banc" appeal request where all the judges of the appeals court hear the case not just the 3 judge panel who made this decision. Those are almost never granted. Heck I bet PTSC appeals it all the way to the Supreme Court to keep those checks coming!
AI
