What happens if the specification and claims use inconsistent terminology?
When the specification and claims use inconsistent terminology, it can lead to clarity issues. The MPEP 2173.03 states:
“A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.”
To avoid this issue, ensure that the terminology used in the claims is consistent with that used in the specification. If inconsistencies exist, they should be addressed to maintain clarity and avoid potential indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
To learn more: