Why are pronouns bad in a patent translation?

[Mark Spahn]

What is so bad about using the pronoun “it” in a patent translation?

The pronoun “it” is not an “indefinite pronoun” as long as its antecedent (the noun it refers to) is clear.

Likewise for “its” and “their” (as an unambiguous translation of その in some contexts).

Pronouns are convenient, and as long as they are as clear (or as ambiguous) as they should be

(ambiguity preservation), why are they bad in a patent translation?

Is there some patent-writing rule (not involving translation) that says that

it/its/they/them/their should be avoided?  If so, why?

-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

 

 

 

From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Warren Smith
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 9:07 AM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Words I hate: Hensoku (Mechanical)

 

I do appreciate the need to preserve ambiguity (that is, to not make the target text more specific than the source text). That being said, as a rule I strenuously avoid using the indefinite pronoun "it" in patents, sometimes going through almost laughable contortions to avoid use of the word. (For example, I might go with something unidiomatic like "ratio changing," to avoid the use of the word "its" in a patent...)

 

On the other hand, I think that "transmission ratio" instead of "gear ratio" works wonderfully.

 

Thanks!

 

Warren

 

 

---

 

How about simply "changing transmission ratio," or "changing its ratio" if you feel the former is too repetitive in a sentence. 

 

Muneo Saito,

Hachioji, Tokyo

[Mark Spahn]

Someone not on honyaku has provided the answer:

 

==QUOTE==

 

Landis:

Do not hesitate to repeat the name of an element each time it appears in a clause (the handle). Avoid using indefinite words 42
to refer back (which or that) or pronouns that do not mention the name of the element (it) unless there can be no doubt which element is being indicated. Wherever there is a second element between a first mentioned element and a later word referring back, as occurred in the above handle/gear/axis example, use of an indefinite reference back should be avoided, as ambiguity is virtually unavoidable. In dependent claims also, one must be careful to avoid confusion between elements in any parent claims (or claims) and elements added by the dependent claim. All such rejections or objections on matters of claim form are based upon claim "indefiniteness" of the claim and trace from 35 U.S.C. § 112, i.e., the subject matter has not been "particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed," meaning that the examiner cannot tell what the claim covers.[14] In In re Miller,[15] the court held that an "indefiniteness" rejection must be based on § 112,[16] and held that the Patent and Trademark Office could not reject the claim under section 103 (obviousness) by ignoring the allegedly indefinite words.[17] The Miller court said: "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentabilty of that claim against the prior art." This question arises in many contexts, such as preamble limitations (section 56), mental steps (section 44), functional language (section 31), printed matter (section 65), and others. Ex parte Schaefer[18] holds that: Omission of some elements of the device [the complete device described in the specification, through the use of the preamble "comprising"--Section 7] makes the claim broad, but not vague, indefinite or misdescriptive. In other words, the court and Board are saying to the examiner: "reject broad claims on prior art, if you can find any, but not under § 112 as 'indefinite,' etc. Section 112 applies only where you cannot understand what the claim covers."

 

http://www.fishiplaw.com/chapter-7-basic-specification-drafting

 

==UNQUOTE==

 

The lesson I take from this is that while it *could* be clear what a pronoun refers to, it is a good patent-writing discipline to avoid pronouns entirely, to avoid the possibility of unintended ambiguity.

[John Stroman]

Mark,

I think the takeaway is that many patent authors are not careful about using pronouns that have clearly identifiable antecedents. Hence, the advice from Landis is to avoid even the hint of ambiguity.

Perhaps the writers of Landis also think clarity is improved by using redundancies such as "refer back" (although I suppose it is theoretically possible to refer forward).

John Stroman ​

----------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Warren Smith]

Hmmm...

 

This quote appears to apply to rules for drafting CLAIMS (as opposed to the rest of the specification). Perhaps my extreme aversion to "it" (in the rest of the specification) is misplaced...

I have noticed that I don't have such an aversion to the use of equally vague terms such as "thereof," and indeed I use this word a lot. I wonder where I picked up this habit, and wonder if it is OK.

 

Warren

 

---

[Herman]

On 04/05/16 21:25, Mark Spahn wrote:
> What is so bad about using the pronoun “it” in a patent translation?
>
> The pronoun “it” is not an “indefinite pronoun” as long as its
> antecedent (the noun it refers to) is clear.
>
> Likewise for “its” and “their” (as an unambiguous translation of そのin
> some contexts).
>
> Pronouns are convenient, and as long as they are as clear (or as
> ambiguous) as they should be
>
> (ambiguity preservation), why are they bad in a patent translation?
>
> Is there some patent-writing rule (not involving translation) that says that
>
> it/its/they/them/their should be avoided? If so, why?
>

There is no rule that dictates avoiding pronouns in general.

The only reason or situation for avoiding pronouns would be if the
pronoun renders the text ambiguous.

That said, the pronoun "it" by nature tends to be ambiguous, as there is
typically more than one noun in the preceding sentence, etc. to which
"it" could conceivably refer to, and furthermore, "it" can be used to
refer to some not clearly defined combination or result of what has been
previously described.

Herman Kahn