> >...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.