The original `749 patent (w/ both Moore`s and Fish`s name on it) describes a processor having a variable speed clock, w/ASYNCHRONOUS 2nd clock for the I/O.

IMHO, and from what I`ve been able to determine, before the `749 patent was finaled, Fish apparently re-designed the existing variable speed clock circuitry to have the 2nd fixed clock operate in a SYNCHONOUS manner.

When the patent office asked for the original 749 patent to be subdivided, Fish wanted to know if he could write his re-designed clock in instead, replacing the original design. The patent officer said yes, so the `336 was born with a clock design different from the original, but still having similar characteristics in structure to support the original processor design and function.

The question now is, did Moore have prior knowledge of that design change?....if not, his name quite possibly should not be on the patent. Patriot`s job is to show Moore did not know about, and had nothing to do with the design change.

Moore may argue that the variable speed clock concept was already known (as described in the 749 Patent) and the ``Fish clock`` design is in fact just an original design modification that did result in improved performance - but not did result in change the overall architecture of the processor. Moore will also have to show that he knew Fish was still working to improve the overall clock design after the `749 patent application submission.

(This is where Moore loses ground, IMHO, he had made refernces to not being involved in this change)

Patriot may argue that since the `336 variable clock design is radically enough different from the `749, and cannot be NOT part of the `749 design; therefore Moore`s name should be stricked from the `336 patent. This would be backed up with documented references both Moore and Fish both have made in regards to prior knowledge and timing of the submission. Also, it would help to have Turley on the stand to explain where the differences are and how they affect the processor innerworkings.

There may be more to this than I have ascertained, but this is what I see as the crux of the problem. Both can argue from different points of view that they own the design.

It will be interesting to see what the court defines as ``new design`` vs. ``improvement to existing concept``, and also in how technical they decide to become in defining patent ownership. We need some similar cases with favorable rulings to sway their thoughts.

All my viewpoint, probably incomplete and jaded...IMHO.

In the meantime, I`ll have another drink.

Regards