The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 21-1634 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2022), affirmed the District Court's construction of “and” in a list of three processes to mean “and/or” in light of the intrinsic evidence. The Court found that these processes were alternative rather than conjunctive requirements because the sole embodiment in the specification included only two of the three processes in the list. Therefore, the claim must be properly construed to require one or more, but not necessarily all, of the three processes. The Court also confirmed that claim construction should not exclude a preferred embodiment unless there is highly persuasive evidence to the contrary.