"Explicitly"? Add another word to the list of words that you don't understand.
No. I meant, and I said, that you were making a semantic point that had no real relevance to the argument being made, not that there wasn't any truth whatsoever in what you were saying. If you think otherwise you are imagining I've written something I haven't. Learn to read real words, not imaginary ones.
If someone interjects the special theory of relativity into a discussion about whether cats or dogs are cuter I'd also say they were making a nonsense argument. Not because the special theory of relativity is untrue, but because it's a stupid, irrelevant point to make given the context. That's an absurd example of course, but I genuinely don't think the distinction between implementation and idea was the spirit of the point that you quoted (i.e. you were just being a smart ass), nor do I think it is particularly relevant to this specific example anyway because, as I have challenged you to clarify, I don't think there is much scope for implementations of "speaker behind grill" that are differentiated enough to deserve a patent beyond the obvious ones implied by the idea of such a thing (i.e. I think you're full of crap when you claim there are between dozens and a hundred).