Created: Nov 1, 2016.
A patent specification should be as detailed as possible, including as many specific examples and embodiments as possible. However, the claims in the patent should be as broad as possible.
One of my biggest pet peeves is when a patent practitioner that should have a kung-fu-like grip on this topic says something like the following, referring to drafting patents:
“Attorneys are taught the art of both being hyper-specific, which is necessary at times, but also the art of being anything but specific. I would not say vague because a patent cannot be vague.” – Gene Quinn, IPWatchDog.com, via this Inc. post.
This statement confuses and frustrates the layperson. I am sure Gene Quinn understands this topic well, but for whatever reason, his statement is confusing.
To be clear: Nothing in a patent should be vague—ever. The claims should be broad, definite, and clear (see Strict Antecedent Basis), but never vague. The specification should also be clear with as many embodiments and concrete examples as possible.