Should every possible detail about every possible aspect of every possible variation of every possible embodiment be thrown into the detailed description of a patent application?  We’ve seen examples of these so-called “kitchen sink” applications, which can run 50 to 100 pages or so in length.  A client or patent practitioner who insists upon writing and filing such an application may believe that doing so will protect the equivalents of elements being claimed.  Is there a downside to such an application?  Certainly, costs of writing the application increase, and these increased costs are either borne by the client or written off by the patent practitioner or law firm.  Another technique is to write a detailed description focusing on the point or points of novelty of the invention, with sufficient support to satisfy the enablement requirement, and listing a reasonable number of embodiments, alternatives and implementations.  It should suffice to discuss general aspects generally, in the detailed description, without needing to list every last possible detail of these.  For example, if a claim recites a first member attached to a second member as part of a structure, the detailed description should talk about how the members might be attached to one another, but not necessarily list every last possible nut, bolt, nail, screw, glue, welding technique, dovetail joint and so on, and how these are produced, prepared, used, measured, supplied, cured, repaired…  Unless, of course, there is novelty in the process of attachment, the materials of attachment or some other aspect of the attachment, in which case this should be discussed in much greater detail.  What constitutes a reasonable amount of detail in any of this?  Intuition and experience are guides.  This is part of the art of writing patent applications.