Well, I typed a pretty long post and when I tried to post it I got an error message related to the website and lost the entire message. So I’m retyping again and since I don’t have much time I’ll be brief. I looked at the pubpat claim and I think obviously the ideal thing to do would be go through each of their disputes and try to figure out if it made sense of not. That however would take much more than a weekend so I’ll simply summarize each patent used to disprove the 336. I don’t need to remind everyone that this is simply my opinion and the information may or may not be accurate. I really haven’t been able to study everything in detail.

1) ledzius 4691124- As I mentioned before, this patent addresses running an ic at its maximum frequency and mainly details how the clock circuitry that enables that feature, is designed. One discrepancy that I noticed about pubpats claim was that it asserts that the IC described in this patent contains an on chip UP (page 10 1st paragraph of b) but the patent itself specifies that the UP is off chip as can be verified by this statement “Referring to FIG. 1, an integrated circuit (IC) 10 couples to a processor bus 12.
Processor bus 12 includes conventional address, data, and control lines as may be required for a processor (not shown) to successfully communicate with IC 10.” This patent does however appear to address one of 336’s claims about the processor performance being related to the speed of the ring oscillator.

2) Brenig 4718081 - Mainly deals with DSP. This is used to assert that a DSP chip can be addressed as a UP and that it could contain a UP.

3) Hanamura 4710648 - This patent is used to prove that the idea of a ring oscillator is a common concept. Does not have any mention of two separate clocks for a processor and an IO interface.

4) Thaden 4660155 - Contains information of two separate clocks used for separate interfaces unrelated to each other. Also contains some information about accessing a memory interface. However controller addressed in patent appears to be an individual chip and is UP is not part of it. Also does not address ring oscillator.

5) Boney 4334268 - Addresses a single chip microcomputer but based on the description RAM appears to be part of chip and only a single clock is used. Also does not specify whether ring oscillator was used.

I haven’t looked at the other supporting items such as the mostek items.

In summary I suppose one or two aspects of the 336 can be proven to be not so novel using a combination of all the items specified in the pubpat claim. Some of the 336 features such as pipelining, multiple instructions and usage of alu and stack for instructions seem to be novel though. In my mind the claim is very vague and assumes a lot of things. Does the evidence need to be absolutely conclusive to disprove a patent? Also does anyone know where I can get access to the figures in the patents?

Hope this information helps somewhat. It may be a bit too general and some of you may already know this information but wading through all the legalese is not easy. I'll post when i get more info.