Appeal No. 1996-3214 Page 9
Application No. 08/195,897
claim language, as it would have been interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art in light of appellant's specification
and the prior art, sets out and circumscribes a particular area
with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See
In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA
1971).
Here, we note that claim 14 calls for the in situ reaction
of "a haloplatinate hydrosilation catalyst" with a specified
quaternary salt to form a "haloplatinate hydrosilation
catalyst". The specification, particularly at page 16, line 24
through page 17, line 3 clearly identifies a salt of
hexahaloplatinic acid (e.g., potassium hexachloroplatinate) as
the platinum containing material to be reacted with the
quaternary salt. When we interpret the above identified claim
language in light of the specification, we determine that the
claimed "haloplatinate hydrosilation catalyst" reactant
language appears inconsistent therewith and to be of
indeterminable meaning. This inconsistency is further
exemplified by the language of dependent claims 16 through 18,
wherein "the hexahaloplatinic acid" is recited without apparent
antecedent support in claim 14 from which these claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007