But there is also a case to be made for backing down on the background section and putting much less information there to avoid handing an Examiner or opponent information to use against your patent. The Patent Prospector reviews an article that calls, among other things, for eliminating much of the background section. The paper is "KSR-Induced PTO Obviousness Practice Changes" by Harold C. Wegner:
VI. THE "PROBLEM” SOLVED BY THE INVENTIONI would suggest problems or limitations can be presented, especially if it is made clear that these problems were not previously appreciated and part of the discovery process for this invention was finding that these problems were at hand - problems which are somehow unique and not analogous to problems in other art areas. But don't present the specific problem solved as if it's one everyone recognizes and would be motivated to pursue with elements such as those used in the invention. Some story telling, when appropriate, might help. Otherwise a minimalist approach may be wise for the background section.
All too often, patent applicants needlessly include detailed "Background" sections, create "objects" and, particularly, set up "problems" in the prior art to be solved. None of this verbiage is necessary to meet statutory requirements of patentability.
A. The "Known Problem" as Fatal to Patent Validity
Setting up a strawman, a "problem", in the "Background" may now prove fatal to patentability; it is irrelevant what purpose the applicant intends to solve:"In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103. One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims."