The ultimate goal of patent systems is to introduce the public about new ideas and technologies through the publication of patents. The inventions of patentable quality are what the patent systems is trying to encourage. At the same time, as it has shown by the patenting history, guaranteeing patentable quality of inventions has been and is to date widely debatable and conjointly costly. The reason for this -- intellectual and intangible nature of the invention and as a result, any satisfactory legal definition of the invention, not mention the patentable one, has ever appeared. Such long time legal uncertainty in patent systems looks incredible. How is it still possible that so many parties involved in patent enforcement and prosecution issues find it possible to apply the legally undefined concept of invention, without noticing the obvious unfairness? I probably know the answer: the background of information in patenting has been and is so far “sickly”. As it turns out in the present article the main problem the patent systems encounter is that the efforts to define the invention has been controversial. Namely, participants in patent systems have not come to agreement what is novel in the patentable invention, whether the inventive idea or its practical application, i.e. its physical embodiment. Undoubtedly, if to take into account the conception of ’intellectual property’ (see WIPO’s Intellectual Property Handbook) and the factual knowledge that virtually in patenting all inventions can be understood as improvements of prior art, then the real patentable invention signifies underlying unique information representing a new inventive idea in the inventor's head. Indeed the solution of concrete technical problem in an inventive process identifies de facto this new inventive idea and I find in all seriousness that mentioned information in accordance with the problem-solution paradigm should definitely be reflected from the independent patent claim coinciding with the legal definition of concrete patentable invention.In the said light I am sure that the patent claim, as the heart of a patent and defining the limits of exactly what the patent does, and does not cover, is supposed to be precise, succinct, and without from superfluous descriptive and contextual material so that readers can more easily identify and understand essence of the invention. Thus the patent claim should be only one sentence long and to determine more specifically the legal definition of the concrete patentable invention. It means, we should not continue to tolerate the situation, where the patent claims have time criticized as vague (not clearly or fully explained), unreadable (very difficult to read), excessively (much more than is reasonable) long, impossible (extremely difficult) to search, and dreadful (very unpleasant) to interpret. My understandings in the present article “Bottlenecks of the patent systems” will give opportunity to prevent mentioned criticism if we will at that follow decisively by the intrinsic principles of intellectual property and of patentable invention, which you should admit, have not been intelligibly implemented yet in patent systems. After all you cannot reasonably have a test where the core concepts -- invention as well as patentable one, used to evaluate patenting, yourselves are legally undefined
