National Law Review giving bad patent drafting advice?
The National Law Review has some advice for patent drafters [ Key Lessons from Patent Litigation for Drafting and Prosecuting Utility Patent Applications ], which includes this puzzling text:
The claimed invention should be sufficiently described in the application to teach a layman how to reproduce that invention.
On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Nautilus v. Biosig that “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” The Court also indicated that “a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby ‘appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them.’” This is the evenhanded result because a patent provides a patentee with monopoly over a claimed territory; this monopoly is a property right; and “like any property right, its boundaries should be clear” (quoting Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.).
First, given that a layman is a person who is not a member of a particular profession, one observes that a layman is NOT one of ordinary skill in the art (the particular profession). The use of the word "layman" is simply wrong.
Second, Indefiniteness is not about "reproducing" the invention.
Very careless and erroneous work at the National Law Review.