It is now clear to me that there are two fundamental key features to the 336 patent. 1. The ring oscillator and cpu are both on the same chip and in the same IC. 2. The ring oscillator and cpu are constructed of electronic devices of like type and constructed of the same process technology.

I believe these are the critical distinctions which earned the allowance over prior art during prosecution. If, when looking at the new prior art cited as the basis for reexam, these distinctions still exist, it will be difficult to find cause for rejection. Unless of course it was obvious. IMHO Opty