[Rich911E]

Early S Man:

Sorry to disagree, but the substantive review of all patent applications is conducted by the "examiners" at the USPTO, almost all of which ARE scientists and engineers. Almost everybody I deal with at the USPTO examining corp in Art Group 1600 is a Ph.D. Very few of the USPTO staff are lawyers.

Regarding the "mumbo-jumbo" in the patent application, the statute (35 USC 112) requires that the "written description" of the invention be sufficient to enable one of skill in the art to practice the full scope of the issued claims. Consequently, the text of the patent application is drafted to encompass alternatives sufficient to enable alternative embodiments of the invention. A narrow description of the invention leads you to only very narrow claims which can easily be "designed around" and makes your patent worthless. Nothing in the specification is designed to intimidate or confuse.

If you disagree with the "originality" of an application, perhaps you can spend some time reviewing the patent applications which are now published 18 months from their priority date and submit relevant prior art to the examiner to avoid these "unoriginal" applications from maturing into issued patents.

Secondly, JohnC's description of the port flow is correct.

Rich