Use of a disjunctive “or” in describing a set of features may be used to infer that the features are alternatives to one another. Although this may not be sufficient to establish that such alternatives are mutually exclusive in a given embodiment, it may imply that they are not a hierarchical subset of one another and that each feature should be interpreted as a separate implementation. As here, this presumption is at least strong enough to overcome a claim differentiation argument directly to the contrary.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to a backrest/leisure chair. The claims at issue cover a backrest/leisure chair comprising a face, a base, a back, and “a top cushion having an upper and lower portion secured to the face of the generally wedge shaped foundation.”
Issue(s): Whether the “secured to” limitation can be met by a one-piece chair with a top cushion that is “integral and continuous” with the foundation rather than requiring a two-piece chair whose top cushion is physically attached to the foundation.
Holding(s): No. Although one of the dependent claims specifically recites an “integral and continuous” arrangement, the court found that the specification and the claims generally use the term “secured to” to refer to the physical attachment of two separate pieces. The specification in particular states that the convex lumbar support “can be integral and continuous with the foundation, or can be secured to the top of the lower portion of the foundation as might be the case if the foundation was made of a rigid material such as plywood, particle board etc.” The court noted that “the use of the disjunctive ‘or’ strongly suggests that the term ‘secured to’ in [the claims at issue] cannot also mean ‘integral and continuous.’”