Since it was requested here is some clarification about my last post.

The design in the bagula paper uses static RAM to decode instructions,ROM to store program instructions and EEROM for additional storage purposes. The three combined utilize about 48% of the die. The EEROM alone uses 30% of the die. In claim 4 it is stated that the memory utilizes a majority of the die and 5 and 6 go onto state that the memory is either SRAM or DRAM. I believe that either

a) claims 5 and 6 from the 148 patent can be used to exclude the EEROM from the total relevant memory of the bagula design since it is a different type of memory, one that is slower and therefore gives no practical advantage when used in the design proposed by the 148 patent. When it is excluded the valid memory (the SRAM) uses only 13% of the total die and therefore the 2nd part of claim 4 is not satisfied. Same for claim 8. Similarly it can be argued that the memory in claim 7 is RAM as well.

b) or the wording in the claims on the 148 can be adjusted to change the word "memory" in claims 4,7 and 8 to "random access memory".

Either way since the bagula design does not specify the appropriate memory type using up the majority of the die area, it cannot be considered prior art.

Also there is no mention of a ring oscillator used in the TMS7000 but as the examiner pointed out it can be argued that it is obvious. I am not aware of the arguments for something being obvious but the hashimoto patent was submitted in 1987 (from what i can see) and the bagula paper was submitted in 1983 well before the hashimoto patent was submitted. Therefore I am not sure whether the ring oscillator is actually obvious.

There does appear to be a microprocessor in the design though it is limited in features when compared to that described in the 148. Moore may be argue in the 148's favor on this topic as well.