Appeal No. 1997-2947
Application No. 08/352,079
Additionally, the language of claims 6 and 12 requires“purifying hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide and nitrogen oxide in vicinity of the theoretical air-fuel ratio.” It is unclear what
appellant means by the words “in the vicinity of the theoretical air-fuel ratio.” The specification
states that the purification performance by an automobile catalyst is most effective at the air-fuel
ratio near to the theoretical air-fuel ratio of 14.6. (Specification, p. 2). The specification also
states that an automobile can hold the air-fuel mixture at approximately the theoretical air-fuel
ratio through the use of a feedback control which detects the oxygen concentration in the exhaust
gas. (Specification, p. 2). Accordingly, the specification implies that an automobile catalyst is
more efficient in purifying the exhaust gases “in the vicinity of the theoretical air-fuel ratio.”
Thus, we conclude that appellants’ claim language requires that catalyst A is capable of
converting the hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide when operating under
conditions that are in the vicinity of the theoretical air-to-fuel ratio.
The Claim Construction for Adsorption Catalyst B
Appellants’ claim a catalyst for the purification of exhaust gases having an adsorption
catalyst B. The examiner finds appellants’ claimed adsorption catalyst confusing since “the
adsorption catalyst does not recite a catalyst.” (Examiner’s Answer, pages 4 and 9). Yet, the
examiner fails to recognize that the functional language of a claim is, of course, an additional
limitation in the claim. See, e.g., Wright Med. Tech., Inc. v. Osteonics Corp., 122 F.3d 1440,
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007