<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:blue;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I will weigh in with my own experience at the Fed. Circ. on this issue. Note that this was not at my current employer, but was at a prior (also in-house) position. Similar to your case, we had a US patent
that originated from a foreign priority filing (German, in this case). The claim had and/or language as originally filed, from the translation. We proactively (i.e. not in response to a rejection) amended it to more proper US claim language: “at least one
of an A and a B”, instead of the original “an A and/or a B”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">The patent ended up being asserted against a competitor, and at the district court the claim construction that the judge adopted (wrongly) was that the claim required both an A and a B, and since the accused
infringer’s product only had an A and not a B, summary judgement for defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">We appealed. Fed. Circ. affirmed with no opinion (Rule 36). Notably, (then Chief-)Judge Prost, who wrote the opinion in
<i>SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc.</i>, 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004), headed up the panel. In
<i>SuperGuide, </i>the Fed. Circ. distinguished between categories on the one hand, and individual items that may serve as replacements for each other on the other hand. The Federal Circuit repeatedly discusses that the plain and ordinary meaning of “at least
one of A and B” is “at least one of category A and at least one of category B” (the conjunctive interpretation) when A and B are categories of things. According to the Fed Circ., the plain and ordinary meaning of "at least one of A and B", at least when the
two are categories, is the conjunctive, requiring at least one A and at least one B. In order for it to be treated in the disjunctive (e.g. A or B or both) requires a clear indication in the specification or prosecution record that this is the intended interpretation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Since there was no opinion written, I have no definitive answer to why they affirmed, but I’m fairly certain that we were hamstrung by the very limited written description (typical of German applications),
which did not provided a clear interpretation that you could have an A or a B or both.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I still remember one statement at oral argument by Judge Clevenger, which I want to impart to you. Referring to the original “and/or” language of the claim, he said something to the effect of, “you had what
you originally wanted and you amended it out – that’s on you.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="color:#00853E">Jeroen Valensa<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7F7F7F">Assistant General Counsel – Intellectual Property</span><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.aosmith.com/"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="127" height="44" style="width:1.3229in;height:.4583in" id="Picture_x0020_4" src="cid:image001.jpg@01DA245B.1EAA92D0"></span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext"><br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">11270 W Park Place<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">Milwaukee, WI 53224</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#7F7F7F"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#7F7F7F">*</span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;color:#7F7F7F"> email:</span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;color:#00853E">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext"><a href="mailto:jevalensa@aosmith.com">jevalensa@aosmith.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="color:windowtext"> Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 1, 2023 12:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Patent Lawyer <patentlawyer995@gmail.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentpractice] The use of "and/or" in claims<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100.0%;border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="4" style="width:3.0pt;border:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:none;background:#CF0000;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt">
</td>
<td style="border:solid black 1.0pt;border-left:none;background:#FFD11C;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt">
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">This message has originated from an
<strong><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">External Source</span></strong>. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt"></td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Thanks for this and other responses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I think the correct (low risk) approach is to rewrite the claims without the term “and/or”.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Why risk some weird Federal Circuit interpretation?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I won’t say that “and/or” is a lazy way of writing, because I do it all the time and I know exactly what it means and what I mean. But the Federal Circuit has changed the rules of English grammar before.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I’ll just take the issue off the table. (The claims are already being amended for other reasons.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Also, this application was written outside the US and there is no option to add something now to the specification explaining what “and/or” means.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Again, thanks to all for responses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> on behalf
of Alan Taboada via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice." <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:35 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice." <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Alan Taboada <<a href="mailto:ataboada@mtiplaw.com">ataboada@mtiplaw.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Patentpractice] The use of "and/or" in claims<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Not sure about a case citation, but the following is my view on this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">There mght be situations where it doesn’t work out this way, but without further information, I think examiner might be correct
on this one.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">In general, “A and/or B” covers claim scope of “A and B” and “A or B” so any prior art that shows either would be relevant to the
claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Generally speaking, “A or B” is typically broader than “A or B” (again, we do not know the exact claim language, but I think that
typically this would be the case).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Since the examiner only needs to meet the limitations of either one of A or B to read on the claim limitation, then the examiner
will (rightly) construe the claim more broadly and not worry about having to find art that shows both A and B.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="color:windowtext"> Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 1, 2023 11:04 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Patent Lawyer <<a href="mailto:patentlawyer995@gmail.com">patentlawyer995@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Patentpractice] The use of "and/or" in claims<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">We've seen this before, but I cannot find the discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">In an office action, an examiner writes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">All claim limitations that include "and/or" are interpreted as "or". If applicant disagrees with this interpretation, they are invited to amend the "and/or" to "and".<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">I believe the examiner is wrong! And I will point that out.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">BUT I recall that there was some case that discussed this.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">I would appreciate a pointer to a case or other reference discussing this issue.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Thanks in advance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><br>
<br>
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you
will see a warning.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext">-- Patentpractice mailing list
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com__;!!NJahUI48xw!SzeXYjLtySIBMJxQ5lPYT3g1G4F2a2ciYYM3zqITQUzkdJmppyAHLf6D3axgVt0g9L12E-K3QqAG9yK8Eq2HCUc0Mw56lMMm$">
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com [oppedahl-lists.com]</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>