At the EPO, a claim that reads “clear” on its face still gets read with its context. That is the practical takeaway from G1/24: when interpreting claims, examiners must consult the description and drawings.
Here is the catch. “Consult” does not mean “the description controls.” Recent Boards have been reluctant to read clear claim terms more narrowly using the description. If there is a mismatch, you fix it by amending the claim.
You do not win with interpretative gymnastics. And if your definition sits inside a rich embodiment, lifting only the definition can risk an intermediate generalization.
From day one, draft the U.S. priority with G1/24 in mind; if the basis is missing in the priority text, you cannot add it later in Europe. A pragmatic approach for filings headed to Europe:
- Align terminology early. Use the same words in claims and description, and avoid unusual redefinitions that stretch ordinary meaning.
- Decide your fallbacks now. Make the combinations you may need explicit, and support them clearly in the description.
- If you want a narrower reading, put it in the claim. Do not rely on the description to do the narrowing for novelty or inventive step.
- Decouple features in the description. Disclose key features both individually and in the specific combinations you may need, not only as parts of a single embodiment. This helps you avoid intermediate generalization issues and preserves clean support for future amendments.
- Remove odd or over-broad glossary language before it creates problems.
- Run a quick “G1/24 audit” on US priority drafts: consistency of terms, clear support for intended interpretations, and no gaps between claim scope and described embodiments.
If you want to know how to apply G1/24 while drafting US priority text for Europe, I am happy to share.
