Couldn't cut and paste it but this is good news IMHO:

From pg. 4

The Patent Owner discussed the cited references and how they differ from the instant invention. Notably, the Patent Owner argued that the Kajigaya reference DOES NOT USE a RING OSCILLATOR to provide a system clock to a microprocessor, and of a microprocessor that operates based on program instructions. Similarly, the secondary reference of Hashimoto was argued as NOT DRIVING a MICROPROCESSOR.

The examiner would reconsider the rejections based on written arguments which would be submitted in response to the Office action dated 6/25/08.

NO KIDDING!

BTW...they have one month from 6/25/08 to submit their written arguments.

GLTAL