One thing I would like to point out, which was touched on previously. That being the '148 interview summary covering the ring oscillator. Read the examiner's words carefully. Pay particular attention to the way the examiner explains the ring oscillator - non-controllable and variable based on the enviornment.

Then look at all the prior art available to us (patents only). What I find is just different ways of controlling the clock speed. Regardless of what the examiner decides to do as far as first office action, if that is the agreed definition, it would appear that the final result may not be in question . I would be interested in knowing if anyone finds any of the prior art fulfilling that definition. Always a chance I missed something. And of course the examiner may just be reciting what the patent owner said, even though he disagrees with it. But that is not the way I read it. All IMHO Opty