As the examiner points out...

Kato differs in that it does not teach..

correspondingly constructed of the same process technology with corresponding manufacturing variations, a processing frequncy capability of said central processing unit and a speed of said ring oscillator variable spped system clock varying together due to said manufacturing variations and due to at least operating and temperature of said single intergrated circuit;

HOWEVER, Ledzius et al teaches...

correspndingly constructed of the same process technology(various lines in ledzius patent)... with corresponding manufacturing variations (various lines in Le)dzius patent)...a processing frequncy capability oif said central processing unit and a speed of said oscillator variable speed system clock varying together due to said manufacturing variations ( various lines in Ledzius patent)...and due to at least operating voltage and temperature of said single integrated circuit (various lines in Ledzius and Kato patent)

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kato to consrtuct the clock generator and functional CPU circuit from the same batch and section of semicoonductor wafer so as to permit process caused variations and temperature caused variations to be compensated as taught by Ledzius et al.(col 4 , lines 2-22)

The files on page 8 and 9 goes on further to show what Kato teaches etc. etc.

In summary, the examiner doesn't reject our claims based on Kato or Ledzius alone,,,,he is taking both patents and when he combines what both teach he rejects our claims, 1-10, based on obviousness of someone with ordinary skill combining them into what we call our 336 patent.

It's the "obviousness" argument we'll have to win with the examiner/PTO. Neither one of these patents could overrule our 336, IMO. Together, they make a case for the examiner's findings.

JMHO