Do patents have to work?

Factual Questions
41

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The claims are correct, because in this case I did implement the technique before patenting it. In my understanding, “skilled in the state of the art” does not mean a master, but someone reasonably competent in the given field. Would there be an issue if to accomplish the claim, a programming trick is required? The trick itself might exist in the literature and be neither a claim nor patentable. In this case anyone doubting the claim could be convinced by a demonstration.
[/QUOTE]

Forgot to answer this part. If the “trick” is known in the art, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to know it or be able to look it up without undue experimentation, then the claim should be enabled. Exactly who counts as “ordinary” and how much experimentation is “undue” are judgment calls for the court.

42

[QUOTE=Voyager]
In my understanding, “skilled in the state of the art” does not mean a master, but someone reasonably competent in the given field. Would there be an issue if to accomplish the claim, a programming trick is required? The trick itself might exist in the literature and be neither a claim nor patentable.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what you mean by a “trick.” If it’s something that a person with ordinary skill in the art would not know or would not be able to find out easily, then it must be disclosed in the patent. A patentee is not allowed to reserve any secrets. That’s the trade-off with patents – you get a limited monopoly, but you have to disclose your invention to the public.