While there are no guarantees regarding obviousness, I think we can use the last response by Moore for the 148 patent and the subsequent USPTO response to guage what the USPTO considers obvious. As an example the examiner accepted that the omission of the ring oscillator from Talbot was sufficient to no longer consider Talbot/May as prior art. He also rejected Talbot because it did not specify that memory did not occupy a majority area of the total substrate. Actually the latter may seem obvious but for the the examiner it wasn't. So my take is that for the 336, unless Kato/Ledzius specifies eactly whats in the 336, the rejected claims will be reinstated.