I, Daniel Ko, have talked to many inventors, and most of them are really good at explaining how their invention works differently from the others and why their invention is better than the others.
However, describing the invention in terms of functions or advantages in a patent application would not meet patentability requirements. For example, while the invention operates in a manner different than the prior art, but if it has the same structure as the prior art, it would not be patentable over the prior art.
Likewise, no matter how good the invention is, if it has the same structure as the prior art, it would not be patentable over the prior art. That is to say; the invention should be described in terms of structure. For example, when drafting a patent application, it would be necessary to describe what elements or arrangements thereof resulting from the invention performing differently or better than the prior art.
If these elements and their arrangements are not disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art, the invention is patentably distinguishable from the prior art. Such prior art can be found using Patentcloud by InQuartik.