Appeal No. 1999-1574
Application No. 08/321,324
adjacent at least one of the plurality of openings;” implies
that the data electrode and the selection electrode are in the
same plane and are adjacent to the same opening in the
appellant’s disclosure, see Figure 3A and Figure 3B, whereas
in Kitamura (Figure 1) selection (i.e., gate) electrodes 3 and
data electrodes 4 are at the opposite planes of the opening 5
which is clearly different from the appellant’s disclosure.
With this interpretation of the location of the data
electrodes and the selection electrodes, we agree with the
appellant’s argument that Kitamura does not disclose the
physical structure which appellant has recited in claim 1 as
supported by the disclosure of Figures 3A and 3B of the
specification.
Therefore we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 1 by Kitamura.
With respect to the other independent claim, claim 11, it
also contains the same two limitations discussed above.
Furthermore, Appellant’s attorney at the hearing advocated the
interpretation of the phrase “circuitry” to be the same as the
means-plus-function phrase, and also the same interpretation
of the recitation of the location of the data electrode and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007