Appeal No. 95-3673
Application 07/935,762
187, 194 (CCPA 1977); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
We have reviewed and considered the examiner’s reasons in
support of the rejection, but are not convinced that the cited
claims fail to comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. We are in general agreement with the positions advocated
by appellant between pages 9 and 13 of the principal Brief on
appeal.
The use of various forms of the word “comprise” does not
render the claims indefinite, but merely indicates to the reader
that other elements other than those recited may be included in
the combination. The conventional meaning of this term is that
it is open-ended. The use of the words “characterized in that”
in each independent claim on appeal clearly indicates to the
reader that the previously recited self-test means is further
recited in greater detail in the language following the
questioned language of “characterized in that.” As to certain
dependent claims, although we recognize that “the first-mentioned
particular self-test” is not explicitly previously recited in
claims before exemplary claim 5, for example, there is in
independent claim 1 clearly recited “a particular self test.”
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 does not require the use
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007