We are finally getting somewhere, I think.

<You ask me to explain why I believed the 148, 336 etc patents cover not only the ring oscillator variable speed clocking devices but all microprocessors that incorporate a variable speed clocking device /system. My answer is that claim 1 of the 148 reads that way, also claim 10 of the 336 as well as the abstract of the 148 patent.>

So, it is your contention that any claim that makes reference to a variable speed clock, could be something other than a ring oscillator.

IMHO, that would only be the case if the variable speed clock was not defined in other claims. All 3 patents that have been discussed recently, the 336, the 148 and the 890 all have at least one claim that spells out what a variable speed clock is. I do not think the USPTO would allow you to define a meaning in one claim and change it in another. Is there any logic to suggesting otherwise?

Opty