Ex Parte 4682857 et al - Page 36

                Appeal 2006-3235                                                                                
                Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696                                                            

           1           After setting forth the “means . . . for creating air channels”                          
           2           limitation, that limitation is further defined by the next clause of                     
           3           the claim, which reads: “said means for creating air channels                            
           4           comprising positioning means which positions at least one                                
           5           elongated, perforated pipe . . . .  ′910 patent, col. 4, ll. 13-15.                      
           6           Although “comprising” language is not limiting and may                                   
           7           include features not recited in the claim, such language cannot                          
           8           be read to require other structure.                                                      
           9    392 F.3d at 1329, 73 USPQ2d at 1194 (emphasis added).  Also, Georgia-                           
          10    Pacific gave an open-ended construction to the phrase “said mat comprising                      
          11    randomly distributed glass fibers bonded by an adhesive material” in the                        
          12    body of Claim 1 of Patent 4,810,569.  As support, the court quoted MPEP                         
          13    § 2111.03 (6th ed. 1997) (“The transitional term ‘comprising’ . . . is                          
          14    inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional , unrecited elements                    
          15    or method steps”) and also cited Moleculon and In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679,                      
          16    210 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1981).  Georgia-Pacific, 195 F.3d at 1327-28 & n.4,                          
          17    52 USPQ2d at 1595 & n.4.                                                                        
          18           Appellant is therefore incorrect to cite Moleculon as support for the                    
          19    general proposition that a nontransitional occurrence of “comprises” or                         
          20    “comprising” should be treated as a closed term.  Furthermore, it is clear that                 
          21    Moleculon’s closed construction of the nontransitional term “comprising”                        
          22    was due to the structure of the involved claim, which read:                                     
          23                 3. A method for restoring a preselected pattern                                    
          24           from sets of pieces which pieces have constantly exposed                                 
          25           and constantly nonexposed surfaces, the exposed surfaces                                 
          26           adapted to be combined to form the preselected pattern,                                  
          27           which sets when in random engagement fail to display                                     
          28           said preselected pattern which comprises:                                                
          29                 a. engaging eight cube pieces as a composite cube;                                 
          30                 b. rotating a first set of cube pieces comprising                                  
          31           four cubes about a first axis;                                                           

                                                      36                                                        

Page:  Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013