「at least one of」用語筆記

最近處理案件涉及專利請求項中使用「at least one of」用語的解釋，並經代理人提醒用法，引用案例SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV，可參考過去報導：

- 解釋「at least one of」用語的老案子 - Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc. (CAFC 2004)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/05/at-least-one-of-superguide-corp-v.html）

- 解釋"at least one"，雖有前例但說明書沒有支持 - Ex parte Jung (PTAB 2016-008290)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2021/05/at-least-one-ex-parte-jung-ptab-2016.html）

- 專利用詞「at least one」討論 - Joao v. Sleepy Hollow Bank (S.D.N.Y. 2004)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/04/at-least-one.html）

根據SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc. (CAFC )法院判決，其中針對"at least one of A and B”的解釋為：“at least one of A and at least one of B”，也可以說是：“one or more of A and one or more of B”，這樣表示同時有A與B，如果發明是需要這樣限制，這就是對的；然而，如果發明還要包括A或B（或包括"one or more A" or "one or more B"）的範圍，需要寫為：“at least one of A or B”、“one or more of A or B”或是“one of A or B”這類寫法。

簡單整理，根據SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc. (CAFC )法院判決，法院認為"at least one of"意思是"one or more"，判決指出：

""We conclude that the plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed language supports the district court's construction and that the phrase "at least one of" means "one or more." Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed.Cir.1999).""

當年法院駁回原告/專利權的人理由是：

MPEP § 706.03(d) (1990). According to SuperGuide, at least some of the criteria referred to in the claims at issue, such as "program start time" and "program type," are not equivalent in the same sense that a "rod" may be equivalent to a "bar." SuperGuide's argument lacks merit for three reasons. 

- First, the cited MPEP rule only states that the given example "may make a claim indefinite," it does not absolutely preclude such alternative expression. 

- Moreover, the example given is distinguishable from the language the '211 patentee could have arguably used here because the modifying phrase "at least one of" does not precede the alternatives in the example. The use of the phrase "at least one of" in the claims at issue provides definiteness that is not present in the example provided in the MPEP rule. 

- Lastly, even assuming arguendo that the patentee drafted the claim at issue in response to the PTO's instructions on avoiding indefiniteness, we fail to see how this instruction compels us to construe the term "and" as "or."

my two cents:我認為，專利權人/發明人/(或加上寫案的工程師)可以擔任字詞編撰者（lexicographer），當年法院這樣解釋的理由之一，字面上似乎有解釋空間，但原告專利說明書並沒有可以反駁法官解釋的內容，因此法官就可以定奪這個解釋。因此，理論上，說明書需要寫出各種可能解釋範圍的內容，避免因為一個字詞用語限制了專利範圍。

代理人提到涉及「at least one of」解釋並引用SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV的PTAB案例：

Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017)

（可參考：解釋"at least one"，雖有前例但說明書沒有支持 - Ex parte Jung (PTAB 2016-008290)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2021/05/at-least-one-ex-parte-jung-ptab-2016.html））

此案例特別的是，專利權人欲以SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV解釋專利範圍，但反倒是其專利說明書不支持，使得專利範圍產生不明確的問題。

my two cents:

一般來說，專利範圍中使用「or」並不太好，至少「and」是比較受歡迎的，因為"or"會造成解釋上不明確的問題，但仍可使用者在具有「選擇特徵」的內容上，老實說一般實務也不會有太大問題。

另一方面，從字面上來想，at least one of A and B，不太像是A與B是一定的底線，這不合理，應該是A或B，或A+B，然而，這樣想已經會被美國代理人質疑，不過，我們能做的是，寫成at least one of A or B（雖不好解釋），並且在說明書中說明各種要涵蓋的範圍：one or more A，one or more B，或是one or more (A+B)，或是其他各種等效的寫法。

Ron