Based on the letter written by the examiner, after the last non-final action was discussed in person with Moore and the lawyers...the examiners stance is that claims 4 and 8 are deemed "anticipated" by Kajigaya and are unpatentable based on Bugula and Hashimoto.

Our stance is thst we differ from the "instant invention" in that "Kajigaya reference does not use a ring oscillator to provide a system clock to the microprocessor and a microprocessor that operates based on program instructions" and..."the secondary reference to Hashimoto was argued as not driving a microprocessor."

Interestingly, his last statement says "the examiner would reconsider the rejections based on written arguments" by the patent holder...maybe our followup letter wasn't as convincing as we would have hoped.