ease,

The main claim in the 336 encompasses multiple features such as

1)providing an entire ring oscillator system clock constructed of electronic devices within the integrated circuit, said electronic devices having operating characteristics which will, because said entire ring oscillator system clock and said microprocessor are located within the same integrated circuit, vary together with operating characteristics of electronic devices included within the microprocessor;

2)using the ring oscillator system clock for clocking the microprocessor, said microprocessor operating at a variable processing frequency dependent upon a variable speed of said ring oscillator system clock;

3)providing an on chip input/output interface for the microprocessor integrated circuit; and clocking the input/output interface with a second clock independent of the ring oscillator system clock.

Any prior art cited during the reexam process has to contain all of the above features to invalidate the main 336 claim. The 336 does not contain any claims containing only (1) and (2).

The examiner for 148 thinks the combination of Kajigaya and Tanimura contains prior art for a microprocessor clocked by a variable ring oscillator and containing internal DRAM. None of the claims in the 148 patent have any reference to (3) from above.There is no mention of (3) in either the kajigaya patent nor the Tanimura patent. Therefore every single aspect of the main '336 patent claim is not satisfied by Kajigaya/Tanimura.

Therefore there is no reason for the 336 examiner to wait for the result of the 148 patent since none of the claims in the 336 contain only (1) and (2). (3) is a very important aspect of the 336 and is the main reason for the holdup in the revalidation process.

In summary, both patents (148 and 336) should be viewed in terms of the contents of their claims.