Ex parte HIKMET et al. - Page 17




          Appeal No. 96-1368                                                          
          Application 08/080,891                                                      


               (b) the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, and 11 based on                   
          Rogers in view of Takayanagi and Tatsuno.                                   
               The following § 103 rejections have been affirmed:                     
               (i) the rejection of claim 1 based on Murty in view of De              
          Vaan;                                                                       
               (ii) the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, and 11 based on                  
          Murty in view of De Vaan and Tatsuno;                                       
               (iii) the rejection of claim 6 based on Iwanaga in view                
          of Murty, Rogers, and De Vaan; and                                          
               (iv) the rejection of claims 13, 14, and 16 based on                   
          Iwanaga in view of Murty, Rogers, De Vaan, and Tatsuno.                     


















                                       - 17 -                                         





Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007