Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
so as to overlap the region. According to the examiner, this
feature is disclosed by Miyata simply because the select line
7 extends over the top of each pixel area 17 (see Miyata’s
Figure 2). We disagree. The broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim language in light of the
specification does not permit reading the claimed overlap
between the select line and the conductive material of the
pixel region to form a capacitor therewith as being satisfied
by the select line’s being "above" a side of the pixel area.
In our view, and consistent with the specification, the
overlap is in the plane of the surface of the pixel area. For
making the overlap, the claims also require a crossing over of
the pixel region by the select line, which is not met simply
by a select line which runs outside the perimeter of the pixel
region as is shown in Figure 2 of Miyata.
Nevertheless, Kim makes up for the deficiency of Miyata.
It cannot be reasonably disputed that in Kim the select line
extends over and across the surface area of the pixel region
to form an overlap therewith. What the appellant argues,
instead, is that the select line which crosses over the top of
Kim’s pixels is not of substantially uniform width as is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007