2

In claims, is there any distinction between the phrases "one or more of" and "at least one of"? If "a plurality of" has already been used in the Claim 1 initial statement (e.g., "at least one of a plurality of"), in combination with one of those first phrases, can the "plurality" phrase be dropped in subsequent claims? (Let's assume in this case that there's a specific reason why "plurality" needs to be mentioned. In other words, the field of possible options from which "one" needs to apply is in fact, necessarily, a plurality.)

Added: To hopefully better clarify the question, consider this part of a claim:

displaying in the graphical user interface *at least one of a plurality* of source content...

then in a later clause,

...displaying *the at least one* source content as a selectable entity...

The questions are:

  1. In the first case of "at least one" and the second case "the at least one," would substituting "one or more" make any logical difference, or otherwise be preferable for clarity?
  2. The phrase "a source content" has been introduced in the first part, along with the use of "a plurality of." In every subsequent mention of the phrase such as in the second part, should "a plurality of" be repeated? (example, revised version of 2nd part):

    ...displaying the at least one of a plurality of source content as a selectable entity...

  • 1
    Is there only one plurality of these elements? In my experience examiners don't really raise an issue when it's very clear what the "one" element refers to. You do run into problems if there's more than one plurality, or if the element also exists outside of the "plurality". – Chris Apr 23 at 18:38
  • 1
    Well written claims can look like gibberish to the uninitiated before they are parsed. It is easy for a pro se applicate to get caught up using stock phrases they have seen in a patent and end up with actual gibberish. There was a case in the "patent news" recently where a judge took "at least one" to require more than one. Proceed carefully. – George White Apr 23 at 20:56
1

If possible please try to use the term comprising and wherein as it appears to clearly define the invention.

please see the below claim of US 8,895,612

A method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition characterized by iron deficiency or dysfunctional iron metabolism resulting in reduced bioavailability of dietary iron, comprising administering to a subject in need thereof an iron carbohydrate complex in a single dosage unit of at least about 0.6 grams of elemental iron; wherein the iron carbohydrate complex is selected from the group consisting of an iron carboxymaltose complex, an iron mannitol complex, an iron polyisomaltose complex, an iron polymaltose complex, an iron sorbitol complex, and an iron polyglucose sorbitol carboxymethyl ether complex.

The term comprising is an open ended term like “including”, “containing”, “characterized by” which do not exclude any additional unrecited elements. (may be used in place of plurality of)

The term whereas in the claim allows the selection of group of elements. (may be used in place of one or moreof)

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.