請求項的範圍能夠包含不可操作的實施例。

http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/1880

claim的範圍是可以包含inoperative的實施例。
"From the point of view of patent laws, there is no requirement that the entire range covered by a claim must be operable. As long as a reasonable range that is covered by a claim is operable, the claim complies with the requierment of the law."

Moreover, where a patent discloses several alternative combinations of methods (as most systems claims will), the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative or not enabled. EMI Group, 268 F.3d at 1349. The '532 and '123 patents do not claim an impossible result or an inoperative invention.

2164.08(b) Inoperative Subject Matter
The presence of inoperative embodiments within the scope of a claim does not necessarily render a claim nonenabled. The standard is whether a skilled person could determine which embodiments that were conceived, but not yet made, would be inoperative or operative with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (prophetic examples do not make the disclosure nonenabling).
請求項的範圍中包含有不可操作的實施例，不必然會使請求項為無法致能。其標準在於：該行業者是否能夠判斷，於該領域中僅僅儘平常所需之努力的情況下，哪些實施例會被認為無法操作或可操作。

「with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art.」這一句還真難翻譯。不懂得改成這樣會不會比較看得懂？算不算對？「with expenditure of effort which(expenditure) is no more than normally required in the art.」