The linked document is only one pleading and therefore certainly may not tell the entire story when viewed in isolation. Nevertheless, it is interesting to go back and see what our attorneys were urging as the correct interpretation --- page 6 is of special note.
In pertintent part, our position in this pleading was that the oscillator "...does not directly rely on a command input control signal..." (emphasis mine). Thus, by implication, if the oscillator did rely on such a signal indirectly, the patentee may not have gotten the patent issued. Our opponents would have deleted "directly" and "command input", leaving only "does not...rely on a...control signal". Notably, when Judge Grewal's most recent ruling issued only a couple of weeks ago, I said that the issue might well come down to "control signal".
Remember, Judge Grewal's prior interpretation found no disclaimer by the patentee that would affect this issue, and the language found in the patent prosecution history, on which he now relies, has been around since the patent was issued. Judge Grewal now says that the patentee disclaimed any kind of control signal, whether on-chip or not. Why so now, but not back then?
I continue to believe this is the crux of the matter as it currently stands, but then again, I'm not a patent lawyer. So, as always, we shall see.
