Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
occasion for application of Kim’s invention. In other words,
the argument is that because Miyata does not suffer the same
problem as the prior art addressed by Kim, Kim’s invention has
no application in Miyata. For several reasons, the
appellant’s argument is misplaced.
It is not entirely accurate to state that Miyata does not
have the same problem of pixel areas being taken up by
capacitor structures. If one with ordinary skill in the art
wanted to increase the capacitance afforded in Miyata, he or
she would likely confront the same problem, i.e., at some
point an expansion of the width of the select line would take
up additional active pixel area. More importantly, a
reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way
of technology and is not limited to the particular invention
it is describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v.
Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907, 225 USPQ 20, 25
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985). Kim’s
disclosure teaches two additional advantages which do not
focus on yielding more capacitance with less active pixel area
overlap.
In Kim’s column 5, lines 40-47, it is stated:
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007