The tone here looks positive for a possible reconfirmation IMO:

Continuation of Description of the general nature of what was agreed to if an agreement was reached, or any other comments:

1. Discussed possible claim language for claims 1 and 16 in which the second clock signal is defined as not originating from the ring oscillator variable speed clock. Examiners agreed that such amendment would overcome Kato teachings.

2. Discussed potential amendment to claim 11 defining CPU as operating asynchronously to input/ output interface. Examiners were not certain as to whether such a limitation would overcome Kato, but would consider arguments and teachings from reexamination patent in evaluating such a limitation.

3. Discussed proposed change to specification where "a synchronous" was changed to "asynchronous". Examiners agreed that this was consistent with references to "asynchronous" already present in column 17 of the original patent, and that such an alteration was acceptable in principle.

4. Proposed changes were presented for discussion purposes; patent owner's representatives did not specifically agree to present these specific amendments in the next response.

SAX