Patent status

[qbjorn]

Isn't it true that a patent application must contain complete information on how to replicate the patented device in order to be valid?
That would imply that omitting some vital details needed to getting the device/process to work automatically voids the patent claim.
In such a case e.g. Stanley Meyer's and Lutec's patents would be invalid since noone has been able to replicate them from the patent alone (or at all?).

[joule]

I was under the impression that Stan's Patent was granted under Section 101 of the patent laws, which if I'm correct means he had to submit a working device to the patent office for examination to prove it worked.

You do not have to give full details in public document, otherwise you would be in court forever fighting the copycats.

[TechMac]

There is also a slight problem with the US provisional patent method. If you cannot get the full patent done by the one year deadline after your provisional application, the rules state that after that 1 year you cannot ever patent that idea.
Although the provisional only costs 100 dollars presently, the chances of sealing yourself out of the patent are quite a risk to take. The advantage of provisional patenting is that you establish an official predescent for your idea and can publicise, sell it, or attract investors.
Since the format language is English, could we possibly get an automatic or optional spell checker? I think my spelling needs it.