Ron - There is no technical difference between the oscillator description on the 890 vs 339
There IS a difference between the 890/339 ring oscillator and the one described in the 749.
In both patents, focus on the fixed secondary clock and the terms ``Synchronous`` vs. ``Asynchronous``....
See my comments to dued on this...the 890 was re-written to synch up with the 339...
In terms of who owns the patent being set aside, I would have a problem with the way the 336 is written - I believe the 336 should be a subset of the 890. But since they were submitted at the same time, I suspect this was the only way it could be done...?
With all this, I have no idea if Moore knew anything about the change to the 890 patent (form the original 749)...
(BTW, I`ve been trying to peruse anything, ANYTHING I could search out related to patents...YOU talk about being confused!...)
Regards
(BTW, please see my email)
