Appeal No. 1997-2947
Application No. 08/352,079
1443-44, 43 USPQ2d 1837, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (functional language analyzed as a claim
limitation).
The language “adsorption catalyst” is clear and unambiguous functional language which
means what is says. Specifically, the plain and ordinary meaning of an “adsorption catalyst” is a
material having both adsorption properties and catalytic properties. No confusion can arise from
such a functionally defined term.
The specification provides support for appellants’ claimed adsorption catalyst having
both adsorption and catalytic properties. In particular, the specification states:
As the adsorption catalyst B, it is preferable that a catalyst layer formed by mixing
powder composed mainly of activated ceria and/or alumina with at least one noble metal
selected from the group consisting of platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd) and rhodium (Rh) as
a catalyst component is provided onto [the] zeolite layer. (Specification, pages 4-5).
Thus it can be seen that the specification provides written description for a catalyst being present
in the adsorption catalyst. The fact that appellants have not positively recited the presence of a
specific catalyst “layer” does not render the claim term “adsorption catalyst” ambiguous or
detract from its plain and ordinary meaning. Indeed, while the claim term “adsorption catalyst”
requires the presence of a catalyst we cannot limit the term “adsorption catalyst” to require a
“catalytic layer” as claim terms cannot be narrowed by reference to the written description or
prosecution history unless the claim language invites reference to those sources. Johnson
Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989-990, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir.
1999). Moreover, it is improper to add an extraneous limitation to a claim, that is, a limitation
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007