The patentability requirements are mostly novel, non obvious, and useful, which doesn't say enablement, i.e. anything that novel, non obvious, and useful can be patented. But to get the patent it needs to teach skilled man in the art how to make and use the invention.
(1) What if it does not teach the man in the art but man in higher skilled art? For example, let say a new fan, which implements a new aerodynamics method for higher efficiency. This is not easy to understand for ordinary fan maker, but it is just a normal knowledge for aerodynamics engineers, e.g. plane designer.
So, from aerodynamics engineers point of view, it is very hard to teach normal fan maker to understand and calculation in higher aerodynamics, which may require a very lengthy description, e.g. full courses of maths to learn from normal physics to higher physics, which is very unrealistic for a patent description.
But the actual underlying problem is very simple, just hire an aerodynamics engineer to solve it and make it.
(2) Can this method be used in patent description, e.g. just hire someone out there, because the art is already exist. And save a lengthy description, because there is no need to describe something already known.
(3) So who can choose which art the invention is related to? If it needs to teach ordinary fan maker to understand the complex aerodynamics then it is quire hard to acquire that patent. But if it is considered an higher aerodynamics field then it can be very short and easy.
(4) What if the inventor chooses the wrong art? E.g. the inventor describes the invention for aerodynamics engineer, short and abstract, but the uspto chooses that it belongs to fan maker, which require a very long description. Is there any court on this matter?