The patent examiner citing the kajigaya patent as prior art (as a few others have already pointed out) is absurd in my opinion. The kajigaya design does not have anything remotely similar to a microprocessor which is a key aspect of the first 4 rejected claims (4,7,8,10). In addition while timing circuit TG in figure 6 of the kajigaya patent has an odd number of inverters, there is no feedback to indicate that the timing circuit is indeed a ring oscillator, which is another key aspect of the rejected claims. The 5 ring oscillators the examiner cites on page 12 do not feed the control logic (which the examiner laughably compares to a microprocessor) which is again a key aspect of some if not all the rejected claims.

The bagula patent IMO presents the tougher challenge. There is mention of a processing unit, though it is addressed as a "ALU and temp reg". I have not seen the paper which has to be downloaded from the IEEE website so I have no idea whether the microprocessor is on the same die as the memory. It is also my understanding that even though bagula does not specify a ring oscillator since hashimoto does specify one and since bagula uses a substrate designed by TI with which Hashimoto is affiliated, using a ring oscillator is obvious. That is debatable and I think Moore should be able to handle that.

The remaining claims that were added by Moore also need to be argued for and this will take time but I will admit that I am amazed and perplexed at the prior art that the USPTO is throwing against the '148. I can only imagine they want to sort everything out now despite how trivial it may be and never have to deal with this patent again.