Specification

Cross-referenced

Claim

The numbered sentences at the end of a patent that define exactly what is legally protected. Claims are the only part of a patent that determine infringement — if a product or process doesn't fall within the scope of at least one claim, there is no infringement. Every other part of a patent (abstract, drawings, specification) exists to support and illuminate the claims.

Cross-referenced

Written description

A requirement under 35 USC § 112 that an inventor must demonstrate, through the specification, that they actually possessed the claimed invention at the time of filing — not just that they had a vague idea. Written description is separate from enablement: enablement asks whether the reader can make the invention; written description asks whether the inventor had already conceived it. Failing the written description requirement is common when inventors try to add new matter to a continuation.

Cross-referenced

Broadest reasonable interpretation

A standard the USPTO uses during examination to interpret claim language. Examiners give claim terms the broadest meaning a person skilled in the art would reasonably understand from the specification — not the narrowest. This is intentional: if a claim is too broad it should fail during examination, not slip through and later cause harm. Applicants can argue against an overly broad interpretation by pointing to the specification or adding clarifying language.

Cross-referenced

Continuation

A new patent application filed while a parent application is still pending, using the same specification but with different (usually narrower or broader) claims. Continuations allow inventors to pursue multiple rounds of claims from one original disclosure. Many technology companies maintain families of ten or more continuations from a single core invention, each covering a different aspect.

Cross-referenced

Continuation-in-part (CIP)

A type of continuation that adds new subject matter to the original specification. The original claims keep the parent's priority date; the new material gets a new priority date. CIPs are commonly used when an inventor has improved or expanded an invention after the original filing. The different priority dates within a CIP can create complications during litigation.

Cross-referenced

Enablement

A requirement under 35 USC § 112 that a patent's specification must teach someone skilled in the relevant field how to make and use the invention — without undue experimentation. If the specification fails to enable the full scope of what the claims cover, the patent is invalid for lack of enablement. This is one of the most frequent grounds for invalidating broad software and biotechnology patents.