Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
required by the claims. But the argument is misplaced. The
appellant evidently looks merely at Figure 1A of Kim which
illustrates the prior art, and not at Figure 2A of Kim which
illustrates an improvement over the structure of Figure 1A.
In Figure 2A of Kim, the select line above the extensions
therefrom does indeed overlap the top border of the pixels and
does have a substantially uniform width. The extensions begin
from that part of the select line which is already below the
top border of the pixels. The appellant cannot look only at
portions of Kim’s disclosure to the exclusion of other
embodiments which meet the feature at issue.
As for the extensions which run down another side of the
pixel area, Kim discloses that as well. See Kim’s Figure 2A.
In that regard, the appellant makes no contrary assertion.
What the appellant does argue, however, is that the teachings
of Kim are not combinable with the disclosure of Miyata. The
appellant correctly points out that Kim’s invention sought to
reduce the size of the extensions covering the pixel’s active
area without diminishing the capacitance (Br. at 8).
According to the appellant, because Miyata’s select line does
not even overlap any portion of the pixel, there is no
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007