You asked for it! "Others might have a better explanation – I welcome their help."

While I suspect that we're probably equally technically ignorant, I'm having a tough time "force fitting" your analogy. However, I find that if I tilt my head sideways a little, it does work (LOL!).

I expressed my interpretation in my last post. Bottom line IMO is that the two clocking mechanisms are separated from eachother PHYSICALLY in both examples in question, and thus are "independent". But per my understanding (and I use that word very loosely), the prior art claim specifies that the two clocks are in constant sync at a fixed rate of performance. That's the diffference. Our claim specifies an intermittent sync'ing of the clocks, thereby allowing the ring oscillator clock at the CPU to perform at maximum possible capacity, which an intermittent "check" to enable overall alignment (stopping the CPU from "outrunning" the capacity of other conponents/functions).

And per the '148 (I believe), the only thing with which the ring oscillator operates in with constant sync is the CPU, based on CPU capacity and environmental conditions (heat) which the ring oscillator and the CPU (and other impacted components) share exactly and constantly due to their co-location. These are the components that operate together, without CONSTANT dependence on an (performance limiting) external clock ('336).

I'm actually a bit baffled and frustrated that the examiners, even if not what we would call "skilled in the art", could not grasp this concept, and that Moore (who has impressed in the past) could not gain their understanding. They do seem overly hung up on the words (and perhaps rightfully so), but the words are intended to convey a concept, and IMO they (the examiners) can't seem to make the leap (small step?).

I did really like someone's idea (forgive me...) suggesting Moore/TPL construct two simplistic devices (perhaps mechanical) to demonstrate the concepts of the '336 and the prior art claims. This seems do-able. It's clocking we're talking about here, and clock relationships. It could be exemplified with gears and such, with tripping mechanisms to bring intermitent harmony (our claim) or LIMITING fixed relationships (prior art). And I think I'd put the two clocks right next to eachother in both examples to make the point that "independent" is not entirely about position (the thing our claim and the prior art claim have in common), but about function, performance, and limitations (or the lack thereof) - the differentiating factors.

Hire a clockmaker and a toymaker for a one-time gig with authorized overtime! It would cost money - but what's it worth?! Put something in front of the examiners that they could easily understand, and that could not realistically be disputed - all in conceptual compliance with "the words".

With acknowledged technical ignorance....(I KNOW nuttin'!) Corrections are more than welcomed.

SGE