[marcinzm]

You claimed:

>...and detailed enough that an expert in the domain can reproduce the invention from the description. I can assure you that in practice they are neither.

I provided a counter-example. I'm going to take the the fact you're not responding to the counter-example but rather changing the argument as acceptable that you were wrong.

[cycomanic]

> You claimed:

> >...and detailed enough that an expert in the domain can reproduce the invention from the description. I can assure you that in practice they are neither.

> I provided a counter-example. I'm going to take the the fact you're not responding to the counter-example but rather changing the argument as acceptable that you were wrong.

You ignored the fact that the "innovation" is really embodied in the claims not the rest, because that is what will be covered in the end.

Apart from the fact that even this somewhat better written example makes claims much broader than what was actually done, giving one example does not invalidate the fact that many (and I argue most by a large margin) patents are much more vague.

[pclmulqdq]

In my experience reading patents, you have this backwards. The spec (pictures, detailed description, etc.) is where the disclosure of what you actually did and how you are advancing knowledge shows up. The claims are the enforcement mechanism attached to the stuff disclosed in the spec.

If you eventually sue someone, the claims are used, but they will often be challenged if they go beyond the scope of the spec.