Appeal 2007-2908
Application 10/379,456
a first active metal impregnated in said washcoat layer
that destroys ozone;
a second active metal impregnated in said washcoat layer
that destroys hydrocarbons; and
wherein the first active metal is palladium or silver and
the second active metal is platinum, gold, rhodium or iridium or
the first active metal is manganese, copper, iron, cobalt or
nickel and the second active metal is manganese, copper, iron
or nickel.
The washcoat in claim 29 has a high surface area and contains a
refractory metal oxide. Although the term "refractory metal oxide" is not
specifically defined in the specification, examples are given of what
Honeywell means by the term. Honeywell offers as examples " alumina,
silica, titania, zirconia, or combinations thereof."
Honeywell appears to intend two exclusive lists for the first and
second active metal. (Br. 8-9.) The limitation does not include the word
"either", which would have clarified the question. Moreover, the portion of
the specification that Honeywell cites in support of these exclusive
groupings (Spec. 8:18-24; cf. ¶033) actually supports the broader reading
that any first active metal and any second active metal may be selected. In
its disclosure, Honeywell does not provide embodiments supporting the
exclusive groupings Honeywell contends are claimed. Since we are required
to use the broadest construction reasonable in view of the specification, and
the applicant is in the best position to avoid ambiguity, we should read the
lists as not exclusive. In any case, the art appears to address either reading.
Although Honeywell does not identify any other group of claims for
separate treatment, it in fact provides separate argument for a separate
rejection of claims 62 and 63. (Br. 29-31.) Since we affirm a different
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013