Claim interpretation without spending adequate time to review the entire context is particularly difficult and an invitation to err. However, I'll offer a few thoughts and see if they help.
Ordinarily, I only see "at least" to refer to a number -- e.g., "at least one lunar rover...." For what it's worth, I consider that synonymous with "one or more lunar rovers". Others consider the use of "or" complete taboo -- apparently under the belief that "or" always introduces abiguity -- how it's more ambiguous than "at least" one or two or whatever is beyond me.
Here, did the drafter of the claim intend "at least a" to mean "at least one"? I can't say.
Your interpretation seems to be that the "at least" means that some element can have the concave top portion and other stuff. That's more typically indicated by the use of (i) "comprising" or "including" rather than (ii) "consisting essentially of" or "consisting of". The former allows other stuff to be included in infringing articles, devices, processes. The latter doesn't (assuming there are no exceptions I'm unaware of).
Now, assuming the use of "comprising" or "including" and/or that "at least" means the same thing, adding more features/elements to an accused article/device does not escape infringement. I'm not aware of any authority that the addition of new functionality of the added component makes a difference.
Well, maybe one. There's something called the reverse doctrine of equivalents. If the doctrine of equivalents is the notion that something that doesn't literally infringe but ought to infringes, the reverse doctrine of equivalents is the notion that something which literally infringes but oughtn't doesn't.
Caveat: the doctine of equivalents appears to be clearly in disfavor by the Federal Circuit currently. So reliance on it or it's evil twin (okay, reciprocal twin) is risky.
So, let's pontificate about your hypothetical. Suppose the file history made a big deal about the importance of the concave top portion and the accused device's cover over the concave top portion completely (or at least practically) defeats the importance of the concave top portion. You might have an argument that the accused device does not avail itself of the teaches of the patent and therefore ought not to infringe.
Of course, you'll have to cram that argument into one of the particular forms of analysis of RDoE -- e.g., the covered concave top portion performs a substantially different function in a substantially different way to achieve a substantially different result than the concave top portion. To me, this is merely a rephrasing of the question as to whether the covered concave top portion ought to infringe the concave top portion since people tend to get creative when identifying the particular function/way/result of each of the accused and the claim limitation. Besides, the application of that rule is so mechanical as to be silly (to me): the 'result' is always that the 'function' is successfully performed in the 'way'.
The teaching of the covered concave top portion in the patent itself might suggest that any concave top portion could be covered and still infringe. And that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation. However, courts have often said that described and unclaimed embodiments are dedicated to the public. So, it's pretty clear that merely including an embodiment in the specification is not enough to ensure that the embodiment is covered in the claims. In short, the fact that the covered concave top portion is described in the patent does not necessarily defeat the notion that a covered concave top portion is not equivalent to an uncovered concave top portion.
I hope that's helpful.
Author
Topic: Claim using the phrase "at least" (Read 1364 times)
