
1. An electronic timepiece comprising means for generating electrical pulses at a constant predetermined frequency, means for supplying power to said generating means, means for counting said pulses and for producing a plurality of electrical time outputs corresponding to at least hours and minutes, digital readout means for producing a visual display of selected said outputs from said counting means, and control means for selecting between repetitive twelve hour and twenty-four hour counts from the same said counting means for display on the same readout means.
That claim seems vulnerable to 'prior art', among other things it does not specify a watch format. Digital electronic quartz clocks had been around for decades in the military, radio stations, etc.
As far as multiple conflicting patents go, this is common in new areas of technology. Typically the details get sorted out in court, though the exact way the decisions will fall is hard to predict.
Inventors often make broad claims, which can weaken their patent because it increases the liklihood of a prior art challenge, or occasionally will be struck down because the claim is simply too broad (the Wright brothers' patent on airplanes fell to this.... though technically they were forced to cross-license, so the actual invalidation trial did not occur).
Just because a patent is granted does NOT mean that the claims will hold. the Patent Office is notorious for missing conflicts, granting patents on things that cannot work, and in general letting stuff go through that will get quickly thrown out. Overly broad claims are still very much with us, the BT patent on web linking (which has not done well in the courts), the Monsanto genetically modified cotton claim, and drug maker patents on genes of completely unknown function are simply so broad as to be harmful to the competitive business climate. But it's variable. A claim that would be thrown out of one court might have been strictly enforced in another one.