The better analogy would be, say, if you took an SL-1200 (a turntable manufactured for DJ'ing) and it rotated it "battle style" - same instrument, same accessories, but a different orientation resulting in a fundamentally different use of the device.
It gets the tone arm out of the way, which is what makes scratching a lot more feasible.
That's also why you typically see turntablists using a simple, small two-channel mixer while other DJs tend to employ wider, bulkier 4+-channel mixers.
To OP's point I could've maybe dropped the word "fundamentally" in my post because at the end of the day the fundamentals remain the same, as do the fundamentals of the guitar in the patent vs regular use.
Even modern DJ turntables are still very, very basic: https://www.technics.com/us/products/dj-series/direct-drive-... They are just more rugged than your everyday home listening record player.
The patented guitar thing is literally played the same way but in a different place, which I think should really be considered prior art unless the fashion aspect is considered rather than purely functionality.
decks, you're thinking (some examples):
cdj350 cdj400 cdj800 cdj850 cdj900 cdj1000 cdj2000 xdj1000 etc
I have no idea about how to play pedal steel (but I do play guitar), I thought the string action was way too high on a pedal/lap steel steel to be able to tap on it?
Can’t speak to guitars or pedal steel, though.
As my comment said I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the patent itself (and really the claims are the thing) just saying that that part of the description is probably wrong. And that the patent system doesn't care.
FWIW all the pedal steel guitars I've ever seen are in fact electric guitars... but I know what you meant.