请教专利翻译应该注意的问题

ysun wrote:

因此，这句话也许应该译为 “本发明不限于所示的实施例，而应被赋予与本文所公开的原理及特征相符（或相一致）的最广泛范围。当然，应该还有更确切、更完善的译法。我只是抛砖引玉而已。欢迎继续探讨。

J.H. Wang wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application

Definition
As pointed out by Peter Prescott QC, the expression "patent application" is ambiguous.[1] It can bear two different meanings:

1. The legal state of affairs that is constituted when a person requests the competent authority to grant him a patent and that request is still outstanding.
2. The content of the document or documents which that person filed with a view to initiating the above; most pertinently, a description of the invention together with at least one claim purporting to define it.[1]
The first of those – the request for a legal privilege to which you will be entitled if your application be well founded – is an institutional fact, and is temporal by its very nature. It ceases to exist as soon as your application is withdrawn, is refused, or is granted. The second of those, the informational content of the document as filed (or in other, prosaic words, the piece of paper), is a historical fact that never goes away, no matter what the Patent Office does, or anyone else does. It exists in perpetuity.[1][2] The expression "application" is often employed without being conscious of its ambiguity.[3] The expression is capable of misleading even experienced professionals.[3]

ysun wrote:

Steve,

Yes, this definition of "patent application" by Wikipedia seems pretty interesting.

I'm not familiar with patent law, either, but I think it would be helpful if a patent translator has some knowledge about the patent law. To my understanding, if a patent application is rejected, the already disclosed informational content will not be protected by law. Anyone can use the information without risk of constituting infringement. That’s why a lot of inventors choose not to file patent applications. They keep their 'closely held' information in secret as know-how, but some of them would sell others a license to use their know-how.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know-how

ysun wrote:

我认为，the widest scope 不是一个大的子集。而应该说，the widest scope 覆盖了全集，也覆盖了 the embodiments shown。

QHE wrote:

我的理解是，英文原句并非着重于陈述除所示实施例外，“the system 还包括” 什么实施例；前半句很明显是在陈述此项发明不局限于所示具体实施例，而后半句旨在指出对此项专利发明的全面栓释应该是什么- 我觉得这正是孙先生和 Steve 所指出的：




[Edited at 2016-02-17 03:35 GMT]

QHE wrote:

我觉得 “the system” 是指申请专利的发明，作为一个整体它应该包括发明概念(the inventive concept)和具体的实施及途径。我的理解是，英文原句并非着重于陈述除所示实施例外，“the system 还包括” 什么实施例；前半句很明显是在陈述此项发明不局限于所示具体实施例，而后半句旨在指出对此项专利发明的全面栓释应该是什么...

wherestip wrote:

Yes, indeed. Coca-Cola is a good example of this. It will never reveal the ingredients of its secret formula.

http://www.pellegrinoandassociates.com/why-coca-cola-will-never-patent-its-formula/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States

J.H. Wang wrote:

不过，在这里，我觉得还可以再深化一下。就是说，the widest scope 本身可以认为是一个省略的表述，如果写完整应该是 the widest scope of embodiments consistent with..........

Embodiment
in law,
• a specific, disclosed example of how an inventive concept, that is more generally stated elsewhere in the disclosure of a patent application or patent, can be put into practice; see Claim (patent).

Patent claim
In a patent or patent application, the claims define, in technical terms, the extent, i.e. the scope, of the protection conferred by a patent, or the protection sought in a patent application. In other words, the purpose of the claims is to define which subject-matter is protected by the patent (or sought to be protected by the patent application). This is termed the "notice function" of a patent claim--to warn others of what they must not do if they are to avoid infringement liability.[1] The claims are of the utmost importance both during prosecution and litigation alike.

ysun wrote:


我认为 the widest scope 还是指 the widest scope of the invention。 Embodiment 只是 a specific, disclosed example。以下两个链接，有助于我们理解 embodiments、claims 与 invention 之间的关系。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim#Basic_types_and_categories

coolfool wrote:

Logically There Is No Problem, If I Am Not All Wet.

"The present invention discloses a method"，在逻辑上是有问题的，因为 It is the applicant, not the present invention, who discloses a method。

Likewise,
His name escapes me.在逻辑上是有问题的，因为It is I, not the his name, who fail to remember his name. Unluckily, native English speakers as often as not say and write so. It simply means I can’t remember his name.
...

Let us consult dictionary, if I am allowed.
disclose: vt. allow (sth.) to be seen, esp. by uncovering it; or to make known (sth. heretofore kept secret)
The present invention discloses a method may perhaps be rewritten as The present invention allows a method to be seen. or The present invention makes a method known.
In the same way,
escape: vt. fail to be noticed or remembered by (sb.)
His name escapes me. can also be rephrased as His name fails to be noticed by me.

This may not be a logical problem, I guess, but the usage in English as well as in Chinese. The examples as I provide them:
本文通过考察美国最大的4家上市页岩油企业披露的财务数据，计算后发现...
本文研判认为...
在逻辑上是有问题的，因为不是本文，而是本文作者...因为本文是不会考察和计算的，更不会研判。但是，我们都知道，这个本文就是本文作者的意思。

Whether our similar Chinese sentences can be traced back to the golden olden days or the pattern was imported, or exported, sometime somewhere somehow by somebody, I am not any the wiser.

The sentences in question found in dictionaries and patent applications can be pigeon-holed but the raison d’être beneath the surface is one and the same.

Am I all at sea with the issue? More than likely. I am all eyes then.

[修改时间: 2016-03-04 16:47 GMT]

本文通过考察美国最大的4家上市页岩油企业披露的财务数据，计算后发现...
本文研判认为...
在逻辑上是有问题的，因为不是本文，而是本文作者...因为本文是不会考察和计算的，更不会研判。