Your proposed claim format would greatly improve clarity. I particularly like the definitions and examples being included in the claims. Too often patent attor

Your proposed claim format would greatly improve clarity. I particularly like the definitions and examples being included in the claims. Too often patent attorneys define terms contrary to their ordinary meaning. I might not think to check the specification for a definition, and end up wasting a lot of time. With that being said, I sometimes do 112(b) rejections for exemplary language in claims as they can make the claims unclear (for example: "for example"). I think if the claim or specification was written to make it clear that the examples are just examples and not limiting the claim then it would be okay. Reference numbers are common in patent claims outside of the US, but it seems that US patent attorneys worry that adding reference numbers would limit the breadth of the claims. There's no statute or USPTO rule against reference numbers in the claims and I'm not aware of any case law justifying not adding them. Not having reference numbers in the claims is a loss for clarity, particularly when the claims use different terminology than the specification (which is unfortunately common). (Again, this is just my opinion, not that of the USPTO, US govt., etc.)