Some writers insist that include be used only when it is followed by a partial list of the contend of the reference of the subject. This restriction is too strong. The use of comprise or consist of will avoid ambiguity when a listing is meant to be exhaustive.
I agree that it's the opposite of standard usage but that's how it's interpreted in patent language. Here's a quote straight from the USPTO website:
"The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps."
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html
There are other non-standard interpretations in patent language. For example, "a" or "an" is not necessarily a singular but can mean "one or more". Also the inventor is free to provide their own definitions for words they use in the patent specification.
