" It's like a patent on a tire that doesn't mention air is needed to make it work properly."

That and the remark made last week about a pen needing ink (forgot who made it, but well said) should be made clear to a jury.

Juries see FACTS while judges see Law.

Get the facts out and the jury will come to a correct finding.

BTW, does not mentioning 'prior art' on how an air pump works to inflate the tire in the above example invalidate the tire patent?

Just how far to the absurd does one have to go to invalidate the patent?