This is an illustratration of invention and its division into its patentable entities, such as PA1, PA2, etc. Using the scientific definition of inventions as detailed in Patentics(TM), it is possible to efficiently coordinate the various filings:

1. Patentics™ may use a scientific description of inventions to define an invention during the inventor - patent attorney dialog , to search for similar inventions using automatic tools, for patent prosecution, patent infringement and patent interference proceedings, etc.

2. Important: Until now, sets of words with some Boolean logic were used to describe an invention, however it was a futile attempt. Even if several words were included in a document, they may not be functionally related. A reliable way to search prior art is to retrieve a large number of documents and to manually read and compare them. The new method describes a structure in a precise, mathematic way.

3. A structure may refer to a system or a method.

4. Where known physical phenomena are mentioned, pointers to technical literature on the subject may be included, or an affidavit from a technical professional such as a professional engineer, may be attached, or a description of a feasibility study performed by the inventor.

5. The new description allows to compare a system structure with that of other systems, rather than comparing a set of words as in prior art. A set of words randomly found in a document is not indicative of a structure.

6. The method strives to unambiguously describe a structure in mathematical terms; it may be imperfect, so human review and intervention may be required. The method may be used as a support, rather than final decision, system.

7. It is preferable to describe inventions using standard terms, that is words accepted in the scientific discipline related to the invention. As a practical compromise, until such a standard vocabulary is developed, it may be assumed that the terms in the present invention are standard terms, and translate prior art/cited patents terms into these terms.

This may facilitate faster assimilation of the new methods. Throughout the present disclosure and claims, where "standard terms" or "standard vocabulary" is mentioned, it should also refer to this option.

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.").