The Figure details an embodiment of a novel Patent application system - the structure of the new patent application and the interrelation between its parts.

The method involves a multi-layer systematic approach, including the following layers/steps, to be consecutively built on top of each other to draft the patent application:

a. Preparing a List or Glossary of the terms used in the application. The List may include a separate listing of standard terms and another of new terms. The standard terms may include the terms accepted in a specific scientific discipline relevant to the invention, the terms in a patent which was upheld in court to form a precedent, an accepted dictionary such as Webster's II Dictionary or Oxford's, and/or terms from the Class/Subclass patents classification.

Special attention should be paid to new (non-standard) terms, which should be carefully defined; preferably, an effort should be made to eliminate or minimize such terms.

The terms may include parts of a system, interrelationships between parts, steps of a method, benefits (either general or specific to a scientific discipline or patent class/subclass), etc.

b. Describing the structure and/or method of operation of the invention, using the terms in (a).

c. Detailing the benefits, advantages of each of the novel structures and/or methods of operation in (b), over prior art.

d. Drafting the legal protection claimed (the Claims portion of the patent application), whilst referring to (b) and (c) above.

To prove that:
The claims are fairly based on the disclosure, and
Completeness of description, there may be pointers from each claim to the description, indicating where there is support for the claimed structure, its operation/use and the advantage claimed. Pointers may be to text and drawings.

e. Compiling additional information which may help to understand the patent application.

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.").