This figure details a structure of an electronic document adapted for patents and patent applications use, including reference to a plurality of prior documents.

This structure may be used where a new patent application includes various paragraphs or sentences from several prior applications, mixed together - the example may be exaggerated, to prove the point that even such extremely complicated structures can be precisely tracked using the present invention.

Thus, in this example, the new patent application includes:

text from original disclosure TOD, followed by
text from 2nd original disclosure TOD2, followed by
text from original disclosure TOD, followed by
text from 2nd original disclosure TOD2, followed by
text from 3rd original disclosure TOD3, followed by
text of 2nd original disclosure TOD2, followed by
text from original disclosure TOD;
(each disclosure may have its own different priority date)
inventors and documents-related info IDRIS
cyclic redundancy code CRC 813, and digital signature DIS.

Patentability criteria: It is to inventor's advantage that patent examiners interpret the terms in the disclosure and claims as he intended them to; it is important to prove in the application explicit definitions for each significant term.

That definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim.

Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (meaning of words used in a claim is not construed in a "lexicographic vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawings.").