I understand the disclosure requirements to attain a patent to be
on:
being able to build the invention
not on:
being able to
understand the invention
Title 35 specifically says:
Part II,
Chapter 11, Section 112
(a) In General.— The specification shall
contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of
making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable
any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most
nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best
mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the
invention.
Bolding mine. As a result, because there is sufficient
disclosure for someone to build the device exactly* - that
requirement is met. But that doesn't mean the one who duplicated the device
understands it.
I don't believe I've ever seen a requirement in Patent
Law to explain the physics behind a given device and what makes it
work.
That science book I mentioned does explain the functionality - even
if I didn't understand it or the math supplied. :)
* Of course, I still
speak in the context of the concept I originaly spoke, not to any specific
application with the exception of the examples I provided for the purpose of
proving the concept.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|