am I reading THOMAS GAFFORDs declaration correctly?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:of... />

what he says in #13 is that while he acknowledges that the invention of 336 has variable frequency, there were other clocking devices at or before that time which also used a varied frequency (even though fixed was by and far the industry standard). this would claim that PRIOR ART existed and therefore should be deemed "obvious". - by the way WHY didnt he continue on???? as I see it he abruptly ends his thought here and moves on to technical stuff. what computer had a varying frequency oscillator clocking its microprocessor?

but he offers a direct contradiction the variable frequency argument in #20 by stating that 336 can/is greatly affected by (what i would call aftermarket parts like a sound card or video card). stating that those parts would make it imposable to have a variable frequency ... and that 336 is in fact a FIXED frequency. this would state that there is no NEWNESS to the 336 patent ... and therefore a DIRECT CONTRADICTION to OBVIOUSNESS.

if this is how i read it ... then I would have to believe THOMAS' declaration would be completely ignored.

PS .. this was copied from WOLFs post 2/9/07

13. From this description, I understand that the inventors are accurately describing a portion of the prior art, which consists of computers that operate at a frequency set by a clock that operated at or below a rated frequency. The clock has some form of control and runs the processor at or below its rated speed, regardless of how the fastest possible speed of the processor circuits might vary with temperature, voltage, and process parameters. Prior art clocks usually operated at a frequency that was relatively fixed, although variable frequency clocks were also known.

20. In order to have a hope of making the invention of the ‘336 patent work, it is absolutely necessary to make all components of the system clock from the same process technology and on the same chip as the CPU. If even one component that contributes in some way to determining the speed of the clock is off the chip or made from a different process, the clock signal will not automatically vary its speed in the same way as the processing frequency of the CPU as described in the patent. The inventors described this concept by saying that the “entire” clock generation circuitry must be on chip. Otherwise, the maximum speed operation of the invention cannot be achieved. It is also absolutely necessary to let the clock circuit run without trying to control its speed at all and only allow its frequency to be controlled by environmental parameters. As soon as the designer tries to control its speed, the speed will no longer vary in the same way as the inherent fastest speed of the components of the CPU (the “processing frequency”).