Well I don't know how else to explain it other than the way I did. The point is that the variable speed ring oscillator is not being challenged. Whats being challenged are the individual claims of the 336 and the 148. For any individual claim in the 148 and the 336 or the 584 or the 749 to be invalidated, there has to be prior art or a combination of prior art that meets every single aspect of that individual claim.

Here's claim 1 from the 336

"A microprocessor system, comprising a single integrated circuit including a central processing unit and an entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock in said single integrated circuit and connected to said central processing unit for clocking said central processing unit, said central processing unit and said ring oscillator variable speed system clock each including a plurality of electronic devices correspondingly constructed of the same process technology with corresponding manufacturing variations, a processing frequency capability of said central processing unit and a speed of said ring oscillator variable speed system clock varying together due to said manufacturing variations and due to at least operating voltage and temperature of said single integrated circuit;

an on-chip input/output interface connected to exchange coupling control signals, addresses and data with said central processing unit;

and a second clock independent of said ring oscillator variable speed system clock connected to said input/output interface."

There are at least 3 aspects that any prior art or combination or prior art has to satisfy to invalidate this claim.

1)There should be a microprocessor that is clocked by a ring oscillator,

2)The microprocessor needs to have an I/O interface

3) There needs to be an independent 2nd clock for the I/O interface

If any of the above 3 aspects are not met the claim cannot be invalidated. The ring oscillator is but one aspect of the entire claim. The independent clock is another aspect and is as important as the ring oscillator.