Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting書中有關一個或複數個的數量量詞解釋章節：
"
Singular and plural elements: An element can be claimed as a plurality (“three or more springs”; “a plurality of rods”; “at least one arm”) – the minimum number needed for proper functioning should be specified; claiming “a pair” will not cover a device featuring one such item – by contrast, claiming “one” or “a” item may or may not include a plurality of such items (contrast Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp. (1997) and Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co. (1999)) – an upper bound to a plurality need not be specified, even in the case of “a pair,” when using “comprising” to encompass additional elements; however, “at least” is still recommended for clarity; but where the claim must be limited to an upper bound, language like “at most three” is acceptable – also, it’s important to clarify which element a numeric phrase qualifies: “at least one of X, Y, and Z” has been construed to mean any combination of single items X, Y, and Z, but not multiple X’s (Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc. (2004)) – however, two ranges should not be included (“20-40mm, and optimally 25-35mm”); similarly, a claim should not feature more than one element with an unbound upper percentage range (“at least 20% X, and at least 20% Y”), since this raises the potential of more than 100% composition of these elements"
在這份文件中說到很多種提到數量，特別是“複數個”的形容詞，有很多寫法，重點是「明確」，很多量詞的數量限制是看「前後文」與技術實質意義而定。
提到「at least one」是不錯的用法。
以下連結中提到，Rich法官有句名言（1990年）：
“the name of the game is the claim.”
關於「at least one/two/three」用語，其實本質上是「選擇式」的寫法，對權利範圍的影響如同「and, or」用在權利要求內的影響，相關案例可以得到「
Joao v. Sleepy Hollow Bank, 348 F. Supp.2d 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)」案例。
案例討論：
Joao v. Sleepy Hollow Bank, 348 F. Supp.2d 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
（判決原文：
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2306652/joao-v-sleepy-hollow-bank/）
案件資訊：
原告：Raymond Anthony JOAO, and Robert Richard Bock
被告：SLEEPY HOLLOW BANK and Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.
系爭專利：US6,529,725
緣起：原告Joao本身是專利律師，自己擁有10多件專利與多件審查中申請案，其中系爭專利涉及可以在交易後（可能是被盜用）再"反悔"該次交易的方法，被告者就是提供「停止支付」服務的銀行，於是Joao對Sleepy Hollow Bank提出侵權告訴。
系爭專利
US6,529,725涉及一種交易安全的裝置與方法，就是當有交易時，用網路的方式傳遞訊息給消費者，以確認當次交易，
更可以拒絕該次交易。系爭專利範圍高達
340項，涉及訴訟的範圍是Claims
108, 135, 138 and 164。
Claim 108：
108. A transaction security apparatus, comprising:
a memory device for storing a limitation or restriction regarding a banking transaction, wherein the limitation or restriction prohibits a withdrawal from at least one of a checking account, a savings account, and an automated teller machine account, or prohibits use of at least one of a checking account, a savings account, and an automated teller machine account, wherein the limitation or restriction is transmitted to a receiver from a communication device associated with an individual account holder, wherein the limitation or restriction is automatically received by the receiver, and further wherein the limitation or restriction is automatically stored in the memory device; and
a central processing device for processing information regarding a banking transaction, wherein the central processing device utilizes the limitation or restriction automatically stored in the memory device in processing the banking transaction, and further wherein the central processing device generates a signal containing information for allowing or disallowing the banking transaction.
Claim 138：
138. A transaction security apparatus, comprising:
a memory device for storing a limitation or restriction regarding a banking transaction, wherein the banking transaction involves a withdrawal from at least one of a checking account, a savings account, and an automated teller machine account, or a cashing of a check on a checking account, wherein the limitation or restriction contains information for prohibiting the withdrawal from the at least one of a checking account, a savings account, and an automated teller machine account, or for prohibiting the cashing of a check on a checking account, and further wherein the limitation or restriction is transmitted to a receiver from a communication device associated with an individual account holder, wherein the limitation or restriction is automatically received by the receiver, and further wherein the limitation or restriction is automatically stored in the memory device; and
a central processing device for processing information regarding a banking transaction, wherein the central processing device utilizes the limitation or restriction automatically stored in the memory device in processing the banking transaction, and further wherein the central processing device generates a signal containing information for allowing or disallowing the banking transaction.
Claim Construction：
在法院解釋專利範圍時，首先考量
權利範圍語言本身，其中用語應以一般而公知的意義，然而專利權人仍可以有自己的定義（
lexicographer，參考說明書、審查歷史等內部證據），法院將根據這些依據解釋專利範圍，設定邊界，這些規則由
Markman案例所建立。
其中有爭議的請求項用語如以上底線所標註的段落，通篇系爭專利都有這段話：
"
at least one of a checking account, a savings account, and an automated teller machine account"
有趣的事，這是一句簡單的英文，句型為「at least one of A, B and C」，卻是複雜到各方老美解讀不一（各方有各自的立場）：
原告對此句的解釋為：從其中列舉項目中僅有一個元件，或是元件的任何組合，句型「at least one of A, B and C」意思指「only A, or only B, or only C, or any combination of A, B and C」。
Plaintiffs urge that the disputed phrase, when used in connection with a list of items (which is the way it is used in the patent in suit) means, "Only one item from the list or any combination of items in the list." Using the phrase, "At least one of A, B and C," as an example, plaintiffs say the claim means only A, or only B, or only C, or any combination of A, B and C.
被告對此句的解釋為：列舉的項目的一或多個項目，句型「at least one of A, B and C」意思指「one or more of A, one or more of B, and one or more of C」。
Defendants argue that the phrase means, "One or more of each of the items contained in the list." Using the same example, defendants contend that the phrase, "At least one of A, B and C," means, "One or more of A, one or more of B, and one or more of C."
（重要觀點）然而，法院認為（用我的角度解釋），光從英文來看，文法是對的，雖然英文文法有一定的規則，但是專利範圍中用語的解釋常常需要「專利說明書」來輔助，這是專利的特性，因為專利用語需要界定一個的範圍，不僅是語言本身的「文法」賦予的意思，也就
是說明書中的實施例可能會影響用語的「廣度」。
在本案中，說明書對於各種銀行帳戶使用的「消費者帳戶（
checking account, a savings account, and an automated teller machine account, or a cashing of a check on a checking account）」，包括單一的使用與組合，其中使用了「and/or」用語：
"
The apparatus and method of the present invention may be utilized to obtain account owner authorization in a banking and/or financial transaction."
"
"a savings account or a checking account number," "determin[ing] the status of the account" and "the transaction," as in "... the account owner may either utilize the reply or two-way pager feature on the communication device 104 in order to either approve or authorize the transaction or disapprove of, or void, the transaction."
法院怎麼解釋「at least one of A, B and C」，本案例引用另一CAFC案例
SuperGuide Corporation v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 885 (Fed.Cir.2004)（不一定應該先了這案），該案爭議的句子為『
at least one of selection and storage of program start time, program end time, program service and program type.』，法官參考該案說明書內容，要得知發明人/專利權人所要表達的真實意思：系統使用者必須
從每個指定的方式中選取至少一個，這裡使用「and」，是一種結合連接詞（conjunctive）的描述。
回到本案，本案系爭專利說明書內容描述相關技術用了兩種連接詞「or」或是「and/or」，包括分離連接詞（disjunctive）與結合連接詞（conjunctive），就不同於以上SuperGuide案例，但系爭專利圖4表示各元件之間僅有分離的關係，也就是這些元件是分開，每次僅能選擇其一。
綜合以上資訊，對於本案at least one of ...，法院這樣解釋：「one or more of one or more of the items contained in the list」，中文從後面往前解釋大概就是「列舉中的項目的一或多個的一或多個」。
I construe the phrase "at least one of... and ..." in connection with a list of items to mean, "One or more of one or more of the items contained in the list."
本案還有其他用語議題，本篇僅討論「at least one」。
資料參考：
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/10/17/conjunctions-andor-patent-claims/id=45733/
my two cents:
系爭專利涉及的動作很「商業方法」，被告者不妨考慮提出CBM。
本篇似乎沒有答案，但這就是答案，每種寫法只要不違反文法，就可以有發明人/專利權人自己的解釋。
專利用語，怎麼寫都會落到一個不明確的爭辯中，理由是語言本身的限制（中文更有這種困擾），或是發明人、專利代理人總是希望用簡潔的用語解釋一個複雜的技術，更或是需要如此才有將來可能的解釋空間。
撰寫專利說明書時，不妨寫出各種實施可能性，讓請求項用語有解釋的空間。
本部落格曾有另一用語參考報導：美國專利局認同"and/or"的專利範圍語言，但有更好的寫法 (about Claims)（
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/01/andor-about-claims.html），PTAB認為「and/or」的寫法為明確，解釋為：『
在PTAB的意見中，解釋「A and/or B」為A, B之個別或是兩者組合，但建議最好的寫法（preferred verbiage）是「at least one of A and B」』。
專利範圍使用到特定量詞，如「at least one（至少一個）」，字面上還算明確，但是如果搭配了其他描述，如「one of at least one」、「all of at least one」、「at least one of A, B, and C」等，特別在有數量考量的技術上，就有可能產生模糊的問題，基於此點，可能最好是將這些可能都以不同的請求項來界定，避免在一項範圍中用過於簡單的描述來界定範圍。
這關於訴訟中解釋專利範圍的議題，十分重要。
感謝同事分享與討論。
Ron
