<div dir="ltr">I generally agree with you David, though I take issue with the BRI of "and/or" being "or" (potentially in an exclusive sense, though the examiner does not seem to say). It's true that and/or <i>encompasses</i> 'exclusive or', and so this interpretation may work for art-based rejections (at least to some extent). But for other sections--Section 112 for example--or for more complicated 103 questions, it's important to remember that "exclusive or" is <i>not </i>the broadest reasonable interpretation of "and/or".<div><br></div><div>To be clear, I concur that 'and/or' is not in any way open to multiple interpretations. </div><div><br></div><div>Bryan</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 10:57 AM David Boundy via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div>PL> questions examiners interpretation of and/or</div><div dir="auto"><br>I agree with the several comments that the examiner's interpretation is the correct "broadest reasonable interpretation"<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">RS> So we agree using "and/or" in claims is open to multiple interpretations<br><br>I disagree EMPHATICALLY with RS. "and/or" has one and only one meaning, "inclusive or." Naked "or" is ambiguous, either "inclusive or" or "exclusive or" with no predictable rhyme or reeason. A cynic could easily conclude that --</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Naked "or" means "exclusive or" if the defendant raises a non-infringement defense. Naked "or" means "inclusive or" if the defendant raises an invalidity defense.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I NEVER use naked "or." I always use something that is unambiguous -- "and/or" often is my choice. If the examiner says this is indefinite, I often cite Gross, see Bryan Wheelock's email.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You also have to watch out for forms that can mean "any one of x y or z in pure form, no mixtures or alloys." Any ambiguity gives a defendant a free option to choose invalidity or noninfringement.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 12:09 PM Randy Smith via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">So we agree using "and/or" in claims is open to multiple interpretations. If you don't want to create a potential $$$litigation issue, use unambiguous language like "at least one of A, B or C" as suggested below. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I agree the examiner uses the broadest interpretation in prosecution so he/she just needs a reference with any of them. </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 10:04 Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">We've seen this before, but I cannot find the discussion.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">In an office action, an examiner writes:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:14pt;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".<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">I believe the examiner is wrong! And I will point that out.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">BUT I recall that there was some case that discussed this.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">I would appreciate a pointer to a case or other reference discussing this issue.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">Thanks in advance.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 12:09 PM Randy Smith via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">So we agree using "and/or" in claims is open to multiple interpretations. If you don't want to create a potential $$$litigation issue, use unambiguous language like "at least one of A, B or C" as suggested below. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I agree the examiner uses the broadest interpretation in prosecution so he/she just needs a reference with any of them. </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 10:04 Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">We've seen this before, but I cannot find the discussion.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">In an office action, an examiner writes:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:14pt;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".<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">I believe the examiner is wrong! And I will point that out.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">BUT I recall that there was some case that discussed this.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">I would appreciate a pointer to a case or other reference discussing this issue.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">Thanks in advance.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 12:09 PM Randy Smith via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">So we agree using "and/or" in claims is open to multiple interpretations. If you don't want to create a potential $$$litigation issue, use unambiguous language like "at least one of A, B or C" as suggested below. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I agree the examiner uses the broadest interpretation in prosecution so he/she just needs a reference with any of them. </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 10:04 Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">We've seen this before, but I cannot find the discussion.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">In an office action, an examiner writes:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:14pt;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".<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">I believe the examiner is wrong! And I will point that out.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">BUT I recall that there was some case that discussed this.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">I would appreciate a pointer to a case or other reference discussing this issue.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">Thanks in advance.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>