Patent Strategy
Why Claim Terminology Controls the Fate of a Patent
Patent claims define legal scope. That is the headline rule. The operational rule, however, is more subtle: claim terminology only has meaning through the specification. Every modern doctrine governing claim interpretation, examination, and validity flows from that premise.
This is not a stylistic preference. It is a consequence of how patent law actually works, from examination through litigation.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Starts With the Specification
During examination, patent claims are construed under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard. The Supreme Court confirmed this framework in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, holding that the Patent Office may apply BRI precisely because applicants have the opportunity—and the obligation—to define their terms through amendment and disclosure.
Critically, BRI is not “broadest imaginable interpretation.” It is the broadest interpretation that is reasonable in light of the specification.
That qualifier does the real work. A claim term that is undefined or thinly described gives the examiner wide latitude to adopt an interpretation that sweeps in prior art. A claim term that is carefully and deliberately defined constrains what is “reasonable,” even under BRI.
In other words, broad definitions do not weaken claims under BRI—they stabilize them.
The Specification Is the Anchor for Claim Meaning
Once a patent issues, the interpretive framework shifts, but the role of the specification only becomes more important.
The court made clear that “the specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Dictionaries, expert testimony, and general usage all take a back seat to how the patentee used and explained the term in the written description.
The holding in Phillips rejected the notion that claim terms should be given their “ordinary meaning” in the abstract. Instead, ordinary meaning is determined in context, and that context is supplied by the specification.
A claim term that is broadly and consistently described in the specification will generally be construed broadly. A claim term that appears only in narrow embodiments, or is described inconsistently, will not.
Undefined or Thinly Defined Terms Invite Narrowing Constructions
Courts do not assume that patentees intended breadth that they did not disclose.
The Federal Circuit limited claim scope based on repeated, consistent descriptions in the specification—even though the claims themselves were broader on their face. The problem was not the claim language. The problem was that the specification taught only one approach and characterized it as the invention’s structure.
The court construed a claim term narrowly because the specification repeatedly tied the term to a particular structure. Broad words in the claims did not overcome narrow teaching in the disclosure.
The lesson is straightforward: Claims cannot outrun their specification.
Indefiniteness Is Ultimately a Terminology Problem
The Supreme Court’s decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. reframed indefiniteness under §112. The standard is whether the patent, “read in light of the specification and prosecution history,” informs a person of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
Again, the emphasis is on the specification.
A claim term is not indefinite merely because it is broad. It becomes indefinite when the specification fails to explain what falls within the term and what does not. Courts routinely look for anchors: examples, parameters, structural relationships, or operational context.
Where those anchors are missing, the claim fails—not because of its breadth, but because of its lack of teaching.
Written Description and Enablement Reinforce the Same Principle
Written description doctrine reinforces this same point from a different angle.
The Federal Circuit emphasized that the specification must demonstrate possession of the claimed invention. Possession is shown not by naming an idea, but by describing it in a way that conveys its scope to a skilled reader.
Enablement doctrine operates similarly. A claim term that purports to cover a wide range of embodiments must be supported by disclosure that teaches how that range is achieved, not merely that it exists.
In both doctrines, terminology is the battleground. Broad terms are permitted—even encouraged—but only when the specification teaches their breadth.
Consistency Is Not Optional
Courts also presume that a claim term has the same meaning throughout a patent. Inconsistent usage suggests uncertainty, and uncertainty invites narrowing or invalidation.
This is why disciplined patent drafting often avoids stylistic variation. Repeating the same term, in the same way, across the specification and claims is not inelegant. It is defensive drafting.
Claim construction is a matter of law for the court, decided based on the intrinsic record. That record is fixed at filing. Once litigation begins, there is no opportunity to clarify what was meant.
Definitions Are How Scope Is Controlled
Effective definitions are not glossaries. They are scope-control mechanisms.
A well-drafted definition typically:
- Explains the term in plain technical language
- Provides concrete examples
- Identifies additional, similar examples
- Clarifies what the examples do not require
This approach does not narrow claims. It prevents unintended narrowing by giving courts and examiners a framework for understanding breadth without guessing.
The Practical Reality
Claim terminology is litigated long after filing, by people who did not speak to the inventors, and who are constrained to the written record.
At that point, the only thing that matters is what the specification actually teaches.
Strong patents are not the result of clever claim phrasing. They are the result of deliberate, thorough, and disciplined definition of claim terminology in the specification, informed by how claims are interpreted at every stage of their life.
That work happens during drafting—or it does not happen at all.
Patent Drafting That Stands Up to Scrutiny
We draft patents with claim construction in mind from day one. Terminology is defined deliberately, consistently, and with enforcement scenarios in view. No guessing. No gaps.
Schedule a Consultation