. Mr. Shaw was aware of this decision by Nanotronics engineers and was aware of the deficiencies in a ring oscillator system clock in the 1995-2000 time frame. Mr. Shaw further worked with one or more engineers at Patriot Scientific Corporation, the successor to Nanotronics, to correct flaws in the design of the ring oscillator system clock disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,809,336.
m. Mr. Shaw was the principal liaison and technical contact of Patriot Scientific Corporation for its then patent attorney, Willis Higgins. In that capacity, Mr. Shaw attended several interviews during 1997 and 1998 with the Examiner assigned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to patent application ser. no. 08/484,918.
n. Despite believing that a ring oscillator system clock would not work as described in patent application ser. no. 08/484,918 or that undue experimentation would be required to achieve a microprocessor with a functioning ring oscillator system clock, Mr. Shaw told the Examiner that a ring oscillator system clock would work to drive a microprocessor at its fastest safe operating speed, thus conveying the impression that a ring oscillator system clock was an improvement over other clocking systems. In particular, Mr. Shaw failed to tell the Examiner that Nanotronics had abandoned the design because it likely would not work.
o. Mr. Shaw intentionally deceived the United States Patent and
Trademark Office in order to expedite the allowance of patent application ser. no. 08/484,918.
p. The deception related to material facts which, if they had been fully disclosed to the Examiner, would have allowed the Examiner to make a prima facie rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112.
UNENFORCEABILITY COUNT 3:
q. At least Mr. Higgins engaged in inequitable conduct during the
prosecution of patent application ser. no. 08/484,918, which became U.S. Pat. No. 5,809,336. Mr. Higgins was the prosecuting attorney responsible for the prosecution of application ser. no. 08/484,918.
r. Mr. Higgins intentionally deceived the United States Patent and Trademark Office by affirmatively stating that Mr. Moore and Mr. Fish were co-inventors of application ser. no. 08/484,918 and never correcting this statement of inventorship.

Be well