Patent representative discussion summery with examiner:

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 agree that such an amendment would overcome Kato teaching.

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

3 discussed proposed change where “a synchronous” was changed to “asynchronous”. Examiners agreed that this was consistent with the references to “asynchronous” already present in colum17 of the original patent, and that such alteration was acceptable in principle.