Also, some patent lawyers have a "said fetish": every component is referred to as "said component" so you get sentences like "A widget consisting of a foo, a bar and a finangle, with said foo afixed atop said bar and said finangle to make an assembly where said assembly has said foo..." etc. The presence of the "said"s makes the claims weirdly unreadable, as they grab scarce attention from the lay reader, so just blip over them when reading.
> we hold that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.
https://medium.com/patents-technology-law/good-news-in-the-f...