Appeal 2007-2908
Application 10/379,456
oxide. (Spec. ¶038.) The specification also teaches the inclusion of a
synthetic liquid resin such as silicones, siloxanes, and organic solvents in the
washcoat. (Spec. ¶046.) Thus, in view of the specification, the broadest
reasonable construction of "active metal oxide washcoat" requires the
washcoat to "contain" an active metal oxide (Spec. ¶038) but not to exclude
other components. In the absence of an express definition or clearly
exclusive claim language, we cannot read the claim to exclude everything
from the washcoat other than active metal oxides from the specified group of
metals. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-56, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028-30
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
The term "active metal" is not defined in the specification, but lists of
suitable active metals are provided. (Spec. ¶¶033 & 048.) The first list is
"manganese, palladium, copper, silver, iron, cobalt and nickel or
combinations thereof." The second list is "platinum, gold, iridium, rhodium,
manganese, copper, iron, nickel or any combination thereof." The
specification suggests that the groups are distinct. One group "has a high
efficiency for the conversion of ozone to oxygen", while the other "has a
high efficiency for the conversion of hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and
water." (Spec. ¶¶033 & 048.) Thus, the meaning of "active metal" is
ambiguous until further qualified by functional language in a claim. We
note that some metals (manganese, copper, iron, and nickel) appear on both
lists and may be active in both functions.
Claim 29 defines the invention as:
An ozone and hydrocarbon destroying system,
comprising[:]
a core;
a high surface area refractory metal oxide washcoat
applied to said core;
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013