Appeal No. 1997-1060
Application No. 08/172,848
redundancy has been implemented on the semiconductor device.
(column 5, lines 49-54, 62-67; column 6, lines 11-15; and
column 7, lines 15-26).
Since the examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 37 has
been affirmed, we likewise affirm the rejections of claims 7
and 12-36 since these claims stand or fall (Brief, page 3)
with representative claims 11 and 37, respectively, and the
appellant has failed to provide any reasons why claims 7 and
12-36 are believed to be separately patentable.
To summarize:
We have reversed the examiner’s rejections of claims 1-6
and 8-10.
We have affirmed the examiner’s rejections of claims 7
and 11-37.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007