Appeal No. 2002-0076 Page 9
Application No. 09/144,842
“A transitional term such as ‘comprising’ or . . . ‘which comprises,’ does not
exclude additional unrecited elements, or steps. . . .” Moleculon Research Corp. v.
CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271, 229 USPQ 805, 812 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, because
claim 1 uses the transitional term “comprising,” it excludes neither operative transmitting
circuitry nor echo cancelers. We are unpersuaded by the appellant's argument.
Problems Solved by the Appellant
The appellant asserts, "problems solved by the invention of claim 1 are that it
provides flexibility that does not limit the talker's mobility and that it would not include a
cable 310 that could become entangled with furniture." (Reply Br. at 5.) He argues,
"[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the teachings of Ford to be relevant
to either of these two problems." (Id. at 6.) The examiner responds, "the environment
which the Appellant is arguing has not be incorporated into the limitation of the claims."
(Examiner's Answer at 5.)
"'[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected,
is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the
game is the claim. . . .'" In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, The Extent of the Protection and
Interpretation of Claims --American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007