According to the paper the bagula design is based on the TI TMS 7000 family. Did a google search since this is a pretty old family (came out in the early 80's) and there are two references I was able to find.

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ti/_dat...

http://archive.computerhistory.org/r...

Based on the information that I have read thus far neither of the references address a ring oscillator. Also a majority of the memory in the TMS 7000 and also the design in the bagula paper is EEROM which can be written to but is extremely slow thus defeating the entire purpose of having the DRAM within the same die (speed). Therefore if the rejected claims (4,7,8) are adjusted to include the words "Random Access Memory" (as have claims 5 and 6) instead of simply "Memory" the claims should be fine. After that adjustment the total area of the memory in the bagula paper could no longer be said to be the "majority" of the active area.

As a final note I would not be surprised to see the TI family listed as priot art for the 336. I believe the reason it has not been listed for the 148 is because there are no references to the total die area that the memory uses in the documentation available. The bagula paper does.