"Turley says that the kind of technology they are looking for is groundbreaking hardware and/or software concepts in the embedded systems and microprocessor space. “We’re looking for something I can understand,” he quips."

In the context of the article in a very trade-specific journal (Control Engineering) I can see the humor in this.
However, as an investor looking to PTSC to optimize the re-investment of its income stream and to find candidates for that investment that promise a great future, I find it an unnecessary constraint.
Were I the founder of a small, under-funded, company with a break-through product or idea looking to take it to the next step, I might think twice about even approaching PTSC as a potential partner. I'd want to partner with someone who positions him/herself as a visionary in the evolution and delivery of new technology or processes in general.
These JT one-liners are probably funny at the time, but set a theme which could be interpreted as restrictive in terms of the goals and capabilities of PTSC.  Especially so when they get quoted or reported independent of the original forum and context.
With JT making such a comment, and a relatively new Board Member (Mr Tredinnick) coming from a similar background, the picture of PTSC having main focus on CPU or "bits and bytes" type technology is reinforced, possibly compromising its access to broader and more lucrative investment opportunities.
I maintain that a Board with more of a VC mindset and associated track record would be better positioned and experienced to create the return on investment of the patent income stream.

But, that's just my opinion....