Writing and Translation of Patent Documents: Language of

ÇeviribilimveUygulamalarıDergisiJournalofTranslationStudiesSayı/Issue27(2019Güz/Fall),220-241Göndermetarihi/Received:30.06.2019Kabultarihi/Accepted:18.12.2019

WritingandTranslationofPatentDocuments:LanguageofDescriptionsandClaims1PatentMetinlerininYazımıveÇevirisi:TarifnameveİstemlerinDilselÖzellikleri

Research/Araştırma

GüldenTANER

Dr.,Postdoctoralresearcher,UniversityofWarwick,CentreforAppliedLinguistics,[email protected],ORCIDID:0000-0001-8040-5195

ABSTRACT

Technicaladvancementsandnewinventionshighlightedtheimportanceoftechnicaltranslation,particularly patent translations as a specialised sub-field. In this respect, translation of patentapplicationdocumentshasemergedasapracticerequiringspecialisation,especiallybecausethetranslated text is bound by the legal rules and restrictions in language use. The regulationsgoverning the writing and wording of Claims and the textual characteristics in the patentdocumentsrequiremoreattention.Themainaimofthisstudyistoprovideadescriptionofthegeneral textual characteristics of patent documents as a subfield of technical translation, andparticularlytoprovideexamplestoillustratethecharacteristicsofClaimswithreferencetorelatedlegalrequirements.ThefocusofanalysisisonEnglishandTurkishlanguagepair.Thelinguistic,contextual,structuralandterminologicalpropertiesofTurkishandEnglishpatentdocumentsareintroduced; then, Turkish and English versions of Claims are compared, to exemplify differentsentencestructuresandtranslationrequirementspertainingtospecifictextualconventionsinTL.Intheanalysesofthetranslations,discussionscentrenotonlyonthetranslationitself,butalsoonwhatgovernsthetranslators’decisionprocessintermsoftechnicallyappropriateandlegallyacceptabletextcharacteristics.Itisclaimedthatitisnotmerelythetechnicalandterminologicalknowledge,butinfacttheexpertiseinthisspecificgenreandstyleofwritingthatbringsqualityinthetranslationofpatents.Thediscussionsregardingthetranslationprocessandexamplesoftextual conventions might be beneficial for professional and prospective translators who areinterestedinthetranslationofpatentdocuments.Keywords:patenttranslation,technicaltranslation,claims,specifications,description

1Thisarticleisarevisedversionofapartoftheauthor’sMAthesis./Bumakaleyazarınyükseklisanstezindenalınanbazıkısımlargüncellenerekhazırlanmıştır.

ÇeviribilimveUygulamalarıDergisi

221

ÖZETTeknik ve teknolojik gelişmeler ve yeni buluşlar, hem teknik çeviri hem de özelinde patentçevirilerinin önemini arttırmıştır. Bu bakımdan, patent başvuru dokümanlarının çevirisi, çevirikuramcılarıveprofesyonelçevirmenlertarafından,özellikledebuçevirimetinyasalsınırlamalaramaruz kaldığı için sıklıkla tartışılan ve uzmanlık gerektiren bir alan olarak nitelendirilmektedir.İstemlerinyazımıvebiçemi ile ilgiliyönetmelikleryanındapatentdisiplinindekimetingeleneği,patentçevirisiniözeldikkatgerektirenbiralankılmıştır.Buçalışmanıntemelamacıyürürlüktekimevzuatladailintiliolarak,teknikmetinolaraksınıflandırılanpatentmetinleriningenelözellikleriileilgilibilgivermekveözellikledeİstemlerinçevirisiyleilgiliörneklersunmaktır.İlkolarakİngilizceve Türkçe patent metinlerinin dilsel, bağlamsal, yapısal ve terimsel özellikleri açıklanmış,sonrasındaörnekİstemlerüzerindenpatentbaşvurularınınİngilizce’denTürkçe’yeyapılanresmionaylı çevirileri kaynak metinlerle karşılaştırılmıştır. Bu sayede farklı yapılardaki İstem türleritanıtılmış, aynı zamanda çevirisi için erek dildeki (Türkçe) patentmetni geleneğinde kullanılankalıplarörneklendirilmiştir.Kaynakveerekmetinlerinkarşılaştırılmasısırasındasadeceçevirininniteliğideğil,teknikdilolarakyeterliveyasalolarakkabuledilebilirbirmetinortayaçıkarmakiçinçeviri eylemini ve çevirmenin karar alma sürecini yönlendiren etmenler de değerlendirilmiştir.Buna istinaden,patentçevirisindekalitenin teknikve terminolojikbilgininyanı sıraözelliklebumetin türü ve yazım geleneği üzerinde uzmanlaşarak elde edilebileceği öne sürülmüştür. Bumakalede sunulan patent metinlerine dair incelemeler ve çeviri örneklerinin, alanda çalışançevirmenveçevirmenadaylarıiçintemelbilgisağlamasıaçısındanfaydalıolmasıumulmaktadır.AnahtarSözcükler:patentçevirisi,teknikçeviri,istem(ler),teknikşartname,tarifname

1.Introduction

Although regarded as a secondary profession or just a part-time activity by many,translationhasavitalroleineverysegmentoflife.Daybyday,theneedfortranslationsthat legal, cultural and technological affairs of modern societies brought aboutincreased.Onemajorpartofthetranslationmarketisnowdominatedbytranslationoftechnicaltextsasthewholeworldisafterkeepingupwiththestate-of-the-art,whichaccelerateddevelopments inscienceandtechnology.Thisentailedan increase intheuseofspecialisedterminologyandaloadoftranslationworkaseverynewtechnologyissharedglobally,eitherforthebenefitofhumanityorforcommercial interests.Theadvance in technology paves the way for new inventions, and with every inventioncomesaninternationalpatentingprocessthatcallsforaspecialisedtypeoftranslation:translationofpatents.This,inturn,introducestheneedforprofessionalsspecialisinginpatenttranslation.

Patentingprocess involveswritingofhighly technicalandterminologically richreports; i.e. “patent documents” which provide the technical details regarding theinvention in question. There are rules and restrictions governing the language thatshouldbeusedinsuchdocuments;andtheserulesaresetoutbylaw(Daldeniz,2004,p.96;Taner,2011,p.2).Whenprotectionissoughtataninternationallevel,translationsarealsoboundbytherulesspecifictothepatentdocumentsinthetargetlanguage(TL).Therefore,patenttranslationcanberegardedasanareaofspecialisationandexpertise;andanindustrygrowingdaybyday(Cross,2007;Tsai,2015).However,specificguides

WritingandTranslationofPatentDocuments:LanguageofDescriptionsandClaims

222

detailing the language of patent documents in these languages or academic workdevotedtothepatenttranslationprocessarestillrelativelyscarce.

Theaimofthisstudyistoprovidearesourceandpatenttranslationguidelinefortranslators and prospective translators through an analysis of Turkish and EnglishlanguageandtranslationconventionsinEuropeanpatentdocuments.Forthisaim,theresearcherseekstoaddressthefollowingissues:i)whatthemaintextualcomponentsof a patent application are andwhat language characteristics each part of a patentdocumenthas;ii)whytranslationofthesedocumentsareconsideredtobeintechnicaltranslationgenre;andiii)whatkindofterminologicalandstructuralrestrictionsgovernthe translation and writing process, especially of Claims, and how these affecttranslators’ decision-making. The study claims that translation of patent documentsshouldbeconsideredasaseparatespecializedsubfieldoftechnicaltranslationduetothedistinctcharacteristicsofthelanguageusedineachpartofthesedocumentsandbecause of the specialized knowledge and strict textual/terminological conventionsrequiredinthewritingandtranslationofthesetexts.Inaddition,thestudyassertsthatwritingoftheClaimsdemandsamorespecificapproachtotranslationsinceitisthepartthatdefinesthelegalscopeofprotection;therefore,itstranslationhasadirectimpactin practice. It is suggested that it is not merely the technical and terminologicalknowledge,butinfacttheexpertiseinthisspecificgenreandstyleofwritingthatbringsqualityinthetranslationofpatents.

In the light of these aims, patenting procedure, required documents andparticularpartsof thesedocumentswillbe introduced first toset thebackground.Abriefdiscussiononthetheoreticalstancewillfollow.Then,thefocuswillbenarroweddownto“Claims” for theanalysissection.Finally, languagestructureandrestrictionsregarding the sentence structure in Claims will be discussed though a descriptiveanalysisofTurkishandEnglishexamples.

2.Background

2.1PatentingProcedure

A patent is a right granted to an inventor, to freely use and benefit from his/herinvention (cf. Pasa and Benacchio, 2005; Carr, 2009; Hitchcock, 2009; Tankha, Bout,FernandesandK.S.,2011).Whenaninventionismade, inordertobenefitfinanciallyfromtheadvantagesitbringsandinordertoprotecttheinventionfrombeingstolen,inventionsandinventorsareprotectedbylaw.Thisprotectionprovidestheinventorforacertainperiodwiththeright“tostopothersfrommaking,usingorsellingtheinventionwithout [their]permission” (Mimick, SmithandThompson,2005,p.119). Thispatentprotectionisalsograntedsimplytoencouragenewinventionsthroughtheprivilegesitensuresforthepatentholder.

Inorderforaninventiontobegrantedapatent,itmustbe“patentable”.Therearedifferentdefinitionsbyvariousauthorsofbooksonpatents;althoughtheyvaryinterminology, theword they convergeon is “new”, i.e. “novel”. TheEuropeanPatentConventiondefinespatentability inArticle52,Paragraph1whereitstates“European


223

patentsshallbegrantedforanyinventions,inallfieldsoftechnology,providedthattheyarenew, involvean inventivestepandaresusceptibleof industrialapplication” (EPC14thed.,2010).Chapter1inPartIIofEPCisonpatentabilityissueandcoversthearticlespertainingtonovelty, inventivestepandindustrialapplication(Articles54,56and57respectively).Therefore,noveltycanberegardedasthekeyissueinpatenting,andthisisalsotheguidingandrestrictingfactorinsentenceconstructioninthetranslationofClaims–whichwillbeelaboratedoninthefollowingsections.

If an inventor considers his/her invention to be patentable under the above-mentionedterms,thens/heappliesforagrantofpatent.Thefirstthingtheinventorhastodoistodecidetheregions/hewantshis/herintellectualpropertytobeprotected.Dependingonthetypeofandtheareas/heintendstousetheinvention,s/hemayapplyforvalidationinoneortwocountries,ors/hemayseekawiderprotectioninmultiplecountries. In otherwords, patent applications can be done at national level; i.e. theinventionwillnotbeprotectedoutsidethedesignatedcountry;oratinternationallevel,withprotectioninmultiplecountriesorglobalprotection.Therearemanyinternationalorganizationsrelatedtotheprotectionofinventionsandpatentrightsglobally,suchasWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganisation(WIPO)whichgrantsinternationalpatents,andotherregionalofficessuchasEuropeanPatentOffice(EPO),theUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO),andtheJapanesePatentOfficewhicharethe leadingthreeintheworld,eachissuingpatentsvalidwithintheirownterritory(AscheronandKickuth,2005,p.225).

Turkey is both in the territory of WIPO which grants patents under PatentCooperation Treaty (PCT); and also in the territory of EPO established by EuropeanPatentConvention (EPC1973:Article4,Paragraph1). For this reason,WIPOpatents(WO)andEPOpatents(EP)aretheonesvalidatedmostinTurkey.Moreover,nearlyallofthepatenttranslationsfromEnglishintoTurkishinTurkeyarecarriedoutundertheimplementingregulationsofDecreeLawNo.551PertainingtotheProtectionofPatentRights2. Both types of applications require similar documents as these are alignedprocesses. In Turkey, the number of EPs listed in Turkish Patent Institute searchdatabasefarexceedsWOs;therefore,asamorecommontype,EuropeanPatentswillbeunderinvestigationinthisstudy.

2.2PatentDocuments

In the first step of this application process, the applicant should provide necessarydocumentstoEPO(EPC14thed.,2010,Article78),whichinclude:

1) RequestforGrant-Form2) Description

a. Titleb. TechnicalFieldc. BackgroundArtd. SummaryoftheInvention

2PatentHaklarınınKorunmasıHakkında551SayılıKanunHükmündeKararname(KHK551)


224

e. BriefDescriptionofDrawingsf. ListofReferenceNumeralsg. DetailedDisclosureoftheInvention

3) Claimsa. IndependentClaimsb. DependentClaims

4) Drawings5) Abstract

Thesedocuments are themain componentsof an application. Thedraft description,Claimsandabstractareexamined,andreviseddocumentsarepublishedafterthegrantofpatent.Asthesearethemaindocumentsinthepatentapplicationprocedurebothbeforenationalandbeforeinternationalauthorities(Daldeniz,2004,p.40),draftingofthesedocumentsaresubjecttoapredetermined“template”.Duetothefactthatthewritersof these textshave to followa certainpathdeterminedby legal texts, thesedocumentsareregardedasoneofthetexttypeswheretexttraditionsareseenmost(Göpferich,1988,ascitedinDaldeniz,2004,p.65).

Once a patent is granted, the inventor will seek validation in designatedcountries;i.e.apatentgrantedatEuropeanlevel“hastobeconvertedintoanationalpatent in each state forwhichprotection is desired” (Harhoff et al., 2007, p.4). Thisconditionmay,inaccordancewiththenationalregulationsinforce,requiretranslationsintotheofficiallanguageofthedesignatedcountry.InTurkey,aTurkishtranslationofthepatentdocumentsisrequired[Article12,intheRegulationontheImplementationofEuropeanPatentConventionPertainingtotheGrantofEuropeanPatentsinTurkey(asrevisedon22.05.2008)].

Before going further on the issue of translation, the characteristics of thesepatentapplicationdocumentswillbedefinedinthenextsection.Astheforms(thefirstdocument) are not translated into Turkish, they will not be introduced in detail.However,theotherdocumentsnecessaryfornationalvalidation-whichcanbelistedasthedescription,Claims,drawingsandanabstract-havetobetranslatedintoTurkishandthistranslationisacceptedastheauthentictextincaseofdisputes.Theimportanceoftranslationandtheliabilitiesitbringsaboutwillbefurtherelaboratedonattheendof this section under “Role of Translation”; prior to these discussions, the textstranslatedinthevalidationprocedurewillbeintroducedbelow.

2.2.1Description

Thedescriptionofinventionisthepartwheretheapplicantdescribeshis/herinventionindetail,byaddingillustrationsanddiagrams,s/hemakesclearhowaprocessorobjectfunctionsorwhatitlookslike(Mohan,2011).Insimplestterms,Article83oftheEPCrequirestheinventiontobedisclosed(i.e.describedindetail)inamannersufficientlyclearandcompleteforittobeconductedbyapersonskilledintheart.Rule42intheImplementingRegulationstotheConventionontheGrantofEuropeanPatentsoutlinesthecomponentsofthedescriptionasbelow:


225

(1)Thedescriptionshall:(a)specifythetechnicalfieldtowhichtheinventionrelates;(b)indicatethebackgroundartwhich,asfarasisknowntotheapplicant,canberegardedasusefultounderstandtheinvention,drawuptheEuropeansearchreportandexaminetheEuropeanpatentapplication,and,preferably,citethedocumentsreflectingsuchart;(c)disclosetheinvention,asclaimed,insuchtermsthatthetechnicalproblem,evenifnotexpresslystatedassuch,anditssolutioncanbeunderstood,andstateanyadvantageouseffectsoftheinventionwithreferencetothebackgroundart;(d)brieflydescribethefiguresinthedrawings,ifany;(e)describeindetailatleastonewayofcarryingouttheinventionclaimed,usingexampleswhereappropriateandreferringtothedrawings,ifany;(f)indicateexplicitly,whenitisnotobviousfromthedescriptionornatureoftheinvention,thewayinwhichtheinventionisindustriallyapplicable.(EPC14thed.,2010)

Titleisthefirstcomponentofadescription,whichgivesinformationaboutthefieldofinventionandthespecificadvantageitoffers.Zerling(2010)definesthetitleas“a technical description of the invention” and notes that it is usually made up oftechnicalwordsusedintheopeningpartofClaims.

Technical field is the part where the area the invention related to is defined(ImplementingRegulationstoEPC,Rule42,1a).Inwritingthedescription,theapplicantshall specify the technical field to which the invention relates in this part of thedescription. The technical field can easily be recognised and identified by someoneexperiencedinpatentdocumentwritingand/orreading.

Background Art section (also referred to as Background of the Invention)introducesthepreviousdevelopmentsinscienceandtechnologythatformthebasetheinventionbuildsupon.Thissectiongenerallyincludesreferencestopatentapplicationsandpatentsthatwerepreviouslypublishedinthesametechnicalfieldandsummarizesthe ways this background art had to be improved. This section also providesjustifications for the novelty of claimed characteristics of the invention, whileconstitutingthegroundsofevidenceastowhytheinventionisadvantageousoverthepriorart.Here, stateof theart in thespecific field thepatentprotection is sought isintroduced, i.e. informationaboutwhat is currentlyknown in technology isprovidedfirst.Afterthisintroduction,thetechnicalfeaturesofknownartisdescribedindetailsothatthedeficienciesofthepriorartareseen,andtheadvantagestheinventionbringscanbebetternoted.Afterthistechnicalinformationpart,thedisadvantagesofthepriorart is discussed. Thebackgroundart sectionmayalso include references topreviouspatentsandpatentapplications,ifthereareany.

Summary of the Invention is not a compulsory part; this section is a generaloverview of the patent application and implication of the technical problem to be


226

solved. It is also referred to as “Brief Description of the Invention” since it brieflydescribesthemethodorproduct,liststheaimsoftheinventionintermsofreducingthecomplexityofprocesses,improvingquality,savingtimeandcostsandsoon,alongwiththe advantages it aims to achieve. This summary, unlike the “abstract”, is a generaldisclosure of the invention, which outlines the technical information without goingfurther in detail. It provides the common characteristics applicable to all possibleembodimentsanddoesnotincludeanyreferencetofiguresortoanyspecificpreferableembodimentoftheproposedinvention.

BriefDescriptionofDrawingsisnotusuallygivenunderaseparatetitlewithinthedescriptiontext,norisrequiredtobeso.Thereareexceptionsinwhichasub-title,suchas“BriefDescriptionofDrawings”or“LegendtoFigures”, isprovided.Inthissection,thedrawingsillustratingvariousembodiments(ifthereareany)aredescribedinordertohelpreadersbetterinterpretthefiguresandthustheexemplaryembodimentsoftheinvention.

ListofReferenceNumeralsisalsoanoptionalpartofthedescriptioninwhichthereferencenumeralsusedinthefiguresarelistedalongwiththetechnical(orscientific)namesofthepartstheycorrespondto.Thissectionisofgreathelpintheinterpretationof thedrawings,and isavaluablesourceofassistance.This isbecauseaconsistencyamongthereferencenumeralsandthepartstheyrefertohastobeachievedalongwithanoverallterminologicalconsistencythroughoutthetext.Italsoservesasachecklistofterminologyinthetranslationprocess,whichshortensthetimeallocatedtotheeditingof the translated text at the end of the process. After this point in the descriptiondocuments,referencenumeralsareindicatednexttothetermstheyrefertoeachtimetheyappear.Referencenumeralsmake the textharder to read,buthelp inaccurateinterpretationofthetext.

Disclosureofthe Invention,orDetailedDescriptionoftheEmbodimentspart isusually themost extended sectionof apatentdescription. In this part, oneormoreembodiments (or, in lay terms, practical, real life application) of the invention aredescribedindetail,withreferencetothedrawings.Asmentionedabove,allthepartsillustratedinfiguresareeachassignedareferencenumeral;thesereferencenumeralsareindicatedwheneverthesepartsarementionedinthedetaileddescription.

This section provides all technical details related to the embodiments of an“inventioninamannersufficientlyclearandcompleteforittobecarriedoutbyapersonskilledintheart”(EPCArticle83).ThisdescriptionactsasaguideinunderstandingofClaims; that is, the detailed description is the part which renders the correctinterpretationofClaimspossible.ItisclearlystatedinArticle100Paragraph(b)oftheEPC that any failure to meet this requirement of clear and complete disclosure isconsidereda valid reason foroppositionagainst thegrantofpatent right (EPC,14thEdition,2010).

Beingrichintechnicaldetailsentailsexcessiveuseofterminologyanditmakesdetailed descriptions a challenge for the translators. Descriptions mostly requiretechnicalknowledgeoradetailedterminologysearchbeforeandduringthetranslation,


227

sothetranslatorspendsmostofhis/hertimeandeffortonthispart.Ontheotherhand,it is this detailed description that helps the translator in better understanding thestructureandthescopeoftheClaims.

ThepatentdescriptionsinTurkishfollowasimilarformatsincetheproceduresare aligned. The flow of ideas explained above is also applicable to Turkish patentdescriptions.

2.2.1Claims

Theinventionisdescribedindescription,butthescopeoflegalprotectionisdeterminedbytheClaims;thisfactmakesthemavitalpartbothinlegalandintranslationalterms(Daldeniz, 2004,p.45). Thedescriptionpart introducedaboveprovidesabasis andajustificationfortheClaims,anditisusedfortheinterpretationofClaims(Article69(1),EPC).Asalsostatedininternationaldocuments,inTurkishpatentlegislation,theClaimsarerequiredtobewithintheboundariessetoutinthedescription,i.e.Claimscannotexceed the features of the invention as disclosed in the description part of theapplication(DecreeLaw551,Article47).AnothercharacteristicofpatentClaimsisthateach “claim must consist of a single, albeit possibly very complex, sentence”(SheremetyevaandNirenburg,1996).

As stated above, similar to other parts of a patent application, although it ispossibletowriteClaimsinanumberofdifferentways,theyhaveaparticularformat.SomeClaimtypesacceptedbyauthoritiesdifferintermsofsentencestructureandtheirspecific language use. These different types of Claims will be introduced here withreferencetoexamplestakenfromsamplepatenttextsannexedtotheapplicationguideofEPO.

1.1.1.1TypesofClaims

ThemostwidelyknownclassificationofclaimtypesisaccordingtotheirrelationstootherClaims.Aclaimcanbeindependent,thatisithasnoreferencetootherClaimsanddescribesthecharacterizingfeaturesoftheinventiononitsown,orclaimcanbedependent, which gives reference to a previous independent claim and adds somefurthertechnicalcharacteristicstotheclaimedstructure.Article9oftheImplementingRegulationsfortheDecreeLaw551announcesthatanindependentclaimshallstateallthemainfeaturesoftheinvention.Rule43intheImplementingRegulationstothePartIII of theConventiondefinesadependent claimas “any claimwhich includesall thefeaturesofanyotherclaim”.

Claimscanalsobeclassifiedintotwogroupsaccordingtotheirsentencepattern.AdvisedareClaimsconsistingoftwoparts;inotherwords,theyhaveapriorartportion(referenceportionindependentClaims)andacharacterizingportion(EPOGuide,2010,p.30).However,althoughquiterare,itispossibletocomeacrossClaimsthathaveonlythe characterizing part, i.e. Claims that give no reference to the prior art and arethereforeone-partClaims.


228

Types of Claims will be exemplified in the analysis section along with theirtranslations.

2.3LanguageuseinClaims

This peculiar language use in patent documents consisting of highly specialisedterminologyandcomplexsentencestructuresismostobviousintheClaimspart.ThoughmostoftheterminologyusedinClaimsisalsousedinotherpartsofpatentdocuments,Sheremetyeva(2003)arguesthataclaimisalsoquitedifferentintermsofitscontentandsyntax.ThedifferenceinsyntaxnotedherebySheremetyeva(2003)mustbeduetothefactthattheseClaimsconsistofonlyonesentence(Lyon,2005).

Daldeniz(2004)remindsthatthisisawell-knownfactinpatentliterature.EachClaimhavingonlyonefull-stopnecessitatesquitelongsentenceswithalmostunclearreferenceswithinthesentence.

As seen clearly from the sample Claims presented above, the sentencestructureusedinClaimsaremoreorlessthesame;nomatterwhichsentenceconnectorisused,theclaimsentencesarenominalsentencesconsistingofanumberofphrasesreferringtoeachother.ThisisafactalsolaiddownbySheremetyeva(2003),whoadds“theobligatoryformofasingleextendednominalsentence,(…)frequentlyincludeslongand telescopically embedded predicate phrases.” To someone unfamiliar with thetechnicalfieldtheinventionisrelatedto,thesereferencesmaybemostlyambiguousespeciallyinlongindependentClaims.Todealwiththeproblemsthatarelikelytoarise,this is the pointwhere the description is a source of referencewhich helps readersbetter understand the claimed features. This does not pose a burden for a personexperienced in reading patent texts, the structure of these sentences are easilyrecognizedandtherelationshipsbetweenthephrasesbecomeevidentwhenoneknowshowtolookatthetext.

AnotherfeaturespecifictothelanguageClaimsistheterminologyusedinthewritingofthem.SincethereisanabundancyoftermsusedinpatentClaims,thetermsusedinpatentdocumentscanbeclassifiedintwocategories:someare“termsspecifictotheinvention”whicharenoveltermsusedforthefirsttimeinthetechnicalfieldinthatparticularinvention,andsomeare“termsspecifictothedomain”,whichareusedprimarily in patent documents andnot knownby those unfamiliarwith patent texts(Shinmori,Okumura,MarukawaandIwayama,2003).

Usually, the terminology of technical field is required in understanding theinvention itself; however, besides the technical terminology, one has to know thefunctions of words or phrases specific to patent jargon in order to interpret Claimscorrectly.Anexampleofthewordsspecifictopatentjargonmaybetheword“claim”itself;anditsTurkishequivalent“istem”,isnotawordwidelyusedbymanyotherthanthosefamiliarwithpatentdescriptions.OthertermsspecifictothepatentClaimsmaybethesentenceconnectorswhichare“characterizedinthat”,“characterizedby”and“wherein”.Thesephraseshaveaparticularfunctioninthepatentdomainbecausetheysignaltheendofpriorartandthestartofcharacterizingportionsofaclaim.Thesame


229

thingappliestotheTurkishequivalentofthesephrases:“özelliği,…dir”.Thisisaformalrequirement for Turkish patent applications that the claims should include “özelliği,…dir” structure rather than sentenceswith “karakterize edilir” or any other possibletranslation(TPEPatent/FaydalıModelBaşvuruKılavuzu,2019).Theformal,structuralandlexicalrequirementsarestrictlysetinTurkishpatentguidelinesaswell.

3.TheoreticalApproachandtheTranslationofPatents

Whenapatentdocumentisread,itiseasytonamepatentdocumentsashighlytechnicaltexts.Thefirst thingthatstrikesattention is the fieldorcontextofa text. Ifa text isaboutsomethingthatisrelatedtotechnologyorscience,thenitisnamedasatechnicalone.Therefore, thedistinctionbetweenscientificandtechnical texts isnotclear-cut.Thisleadstotheclassificationoftechnicaltextstogetherwithscientificonesandthereisnocleardistinctionbetweenthetwo.Scholarstendtorefertothesetextsastechnicalandscientifictextsandtheircommentsabouttechnicalwritingarealwaysaccompaniedbyscientificwriting.Thismaybeduetothefactthatthesetypesoftexts(i.e.technicaland scientific texts) are similar to each other in terms of their content. The termtechnicalwritingisusedasanumbrellatermcoveringdifferentareasoflanguageuse;inaccordancewiththis,Hirschhorn(1980)definedtheprimeobjectiveofascientificandtechnicalwriterasproducing‘aclear,logical,accurateandsuccinctpieceofliteratureforaspecificuse’(p.6).

This“specificuse”asreferredtobyHirschhorn(1980)is,whenitcomestothepatentdocuments, toproducea text that isdescribingan inventionclearly. It isalsoobvious from the content of patent documents that the subject or the informationpresentedinthedocumentisrelatedtoatechnicaldevelopment.Thisfactautomaticallyrendersthepatentapplicationdocuments“technicaltexts”.

Other characteristics that anyone can list when asked about the features oftechnicalandscientificwritingaretheexcessiveterminologyandthecomplexstructuresoflanguagebecauseofwhichthehard-to-comprehendmessagegetsmoreunreachable.Thereisaspecificlanguageuse,asstatedbyErten(1997),freeofstyleandanyfiguresofspeechwhenusedproperly.Byrne,opposingthisview,expressestheuseofstyleintechnicaltexts:

Inmanycases,theimportanceorevenexistenceofstyleintechnicaltextsgoes completely unacknowledged, due largely to thebelief that becausetechnicallanguageisfunctional,itmustbe“plain”andstrippedofanyformofstyleorlinguistic identity. Inreality,however,technicaltranslationisahighly complex endeavour and style is one of itsmost important facets.(2006,p.5)

Patentdocumentscanberegardedasagoodexampleofthese;withfrequentterminologyandastylespecifictopatentwriting.Theyincludesentencesofcompoundandcomplexstructuresandexcessiveuseofterminologyalongwithsomeexpressionsspecifictopatentdocuments.Anypersonfamiliarwithpatentapplicationdocumentsmayeasilynoticethatasentenceistakenfromapatentdocument,evenwhentheysee


230

asentenceinanunrelatedcontext;moreexperiencedpatentdocumentreadersmayevennamethepartofdocumentthesesentencesaretaken.

AccordingtoJumpelt(1961,ascitedinAixela,2004),thedutyandthetaskofatechnicaltranslatorisahighlyspecialised,knowledge-basedanddemandingone.TheopinionsofFinch(1969)arealsointhesamedirection:

Thespecificdifferenceoftechnicaltranslatorfromthegeneraltranslatoristhathemusthavesomeknowledgeofthesubjectwhichheistranslating-indeed, knowledge of the subject is usually of more importance thanknowledgeofthelanguage.(1969,p.1)

Withthisremark,Finchattributesthequalityofthetechnicaltranslationtothebackground knowledge of translator in the field concerned. If the translator lacksadequateknowledgeinthetechnicalfieldtowhichthetranslationisrelated,thismaycausesomeproblemsduringthetranslationprocessespeciallyintheaccuratetransferof content – or information – and terminology which is one of the components oftechnicalwritingandtranslationasnotedbyErten(1997)whodemandsthat“technicaltranslationisdistinguishedfromothertypesoftranslationbythespecialterminologyused” (p. 19). This is obviously true to some extent; however, it would be neitherlinguisticallynortheoreticallyappropriateiftheexcessiveandsophisticatedterminologyisconsideredasthesolecharacteristicthatmakesatexttechnical.

Inthisrespect,JodyByrne(2006)discusseshisviewoftechnicaltranslationasamulti-laterallyaffectedperformanceandinsiststhatthesuccessorfailureoftechnicaltranslations depends on much more than just specialised terminology (p. 253). Asmentionedbefore,withitscertainstyle,divergingfromtheconventionalclassificationof technical translation, patent translation emerged as a separate specialisation intranslationinthatitrequiresadditionalexpertisethatisspecifictothesetypesoftexts.

3.1ImportanceofPatentTranslation

ThemostcrucialpointdemonstratingtheimportanceofpatenttranslationisthefactthattranslationofanapplicationisconsideredtobetheauthentictextinTurkey.Thisisclearly stated in the Article 15 of the Regulation for the Implementation of EPCPertainingtotheGrantofEuropeanPatents:ifthescopeofthetranslationisnarrowerthanthatoftheoriginalEuropeanPatentdocument,thetranslationisregardedastheauthentic text indetermining the scopeof protection in Turkey. Inotherwords, thetranslationmaycauseapartiallossofpatentprotectionrightsinacountry.

Inprevioussections,itwasstatedthattheClaimsarethemostimportantpartofapatentapplicationsincetheyarethedeterminantsofthescopeofprotection.Thisfactaddsalegaldimensiontothetextinquestion,renderingthetranslationofClaimsataskdemandingspecialattentionfromthetranslator.Thetranslator,whiletranslatingtheClaims,hastobeawareofthewritingstyleofClaimssetoutbytheregulationsinforcein the target community, and s/he has to shape his/her translation accordingly. Thedecisionstakenbythetranslatorinthisprocessareshapedprimarilybythefunctionthetargettextwillserve:thetranslatedClaims, just liketheoriginalones,willdetermine


231

thelimitsoftheinventionandwillshapethebordersofthepatentrightgrantedtoaninventor.Thisclearlylinkspatenttranslationtofunctionaltheoriesoftranslation,whichonverybroadtermsclaimthattranslationdecisionsaregovernedbythefunctionsadocument is intended to serve (example of such functional theories would be texttypologyofReiss(1977),translationalactionofHolz-Mänttäri(1984),andSkoposTheoryofVermeer(1984)aslistedbyMunday(2001,p.82).Also,thereareotherfunctionalaspects that are to be preserved in the target language. For instance, the first andsecondpartsofaClaimhavedifferentfunctions:thefirstpartdefinesthepriorartwhilethesecondpartdefinesthecharacterizingportion.Inadditiontothese,thefunctionofsentence connectors within the sentence is noted by Daldeniz (2004) in her PhDdissertation:thefunctionofsentenceconnectorsistomarktheseparationofthepriorartandcharacterizingportions.Andthecharacterizingportionis“novel”,i.e.protected;if thepositionofelementswithinthesentencechange, thatwouldat thesametimemeanachangeinscopeofprotection.Therefore,whatisessentialistoadheretothescopeandplaceofportionsinthetranslationofclaims.

In the next section, some example claims will be analysed in terms of theirstructureandtranslationdecisions.

4.AnalysisandFindings

4.1IndependentClaims

Theoriginaltext,i.e.IC1,consistsofnounclausesconnectedtoeachotherinthefirstpartandaseparatesentenceinthesecondpartconnectedtothefirstpartwiththephrase“characterized inthat”.Asseenabove inTable1, thetranslatorusedasinglesentencetotranslatetheIC1,whichisacorrectchoice,sincetheteachinginthepatent

Table1.IC1anditstranslation

IC1 TranslationofIC1

Aselvageforelectricormechanicallockwithapivot(7)forapawlengagementsystem,comprisingarearfixingplate(2) inwhichtwolinks (4) with through holes (5) are pivotedcoaxially and independently, said holesrotatably accommodating theends (8)of saidpivot(7),characterizedinthatthediameterofsaidends(8)ofthepivot(7)issmallerthanthediameter of said holes (5), producing amechanicalplay(9)thatallowssaidpivot(7)totiltitsownaxiswithrespecttothepivotingaxisofsaidlinks(4).

İçerisinde uzunlamasına deliklerin(5) yer aldığı iki bağlantı parçasının (4)içerisine eş eksenli olarak ve bağımsız birşekildepivotlarınyerleştirilmişolduğu,bahsigeçen deliklerin (5) bahsi geçen pivotların(7) uçlarını (8) kavradığı bir arka sabitlemeplakasına (2) sahip olan türde bir kilitkarşılığıolup,özelliği;bahsigeçenpivot(7)uçlarının (8) çaplarının, bahsi geçendeliklerin(5)çaplarındandahaküçükolmasıvebusayedebahsigeçenpivotun(7)kendieksenini, bahsi geçen bağlantı parçalarının(4) dönme eksenlerine göre eğmesineolanak sağlayan bir mekanik oynamaalanının(9)ortayaçıkmasıdır.


232

literature that demands a claim to be a single sentence prevails. It is seen that thesentenceconnector“characterizedinthat”istranslatedas“özelliği”assuggestedinthepatent application guide of Turkish Patent Institute. The sentence connector“characterized in that”here,alongwith the functionof connectingseparateparts toformasinglesentence,hasthefunctionofseparatingthepriorartandcharacterizingportionsoftheclaim.Itisanindicationofthebeginningofthecharacterizingportioninwhich the new features for which the protection is demanded. And the sentenceconnector“özelliği”inthetranslatedclaimservesthesameaim.

Whenanalyzedatadeeperlevel,itisseenthatthetranslatordidnottranslatecertainpartsofthefirstclausedefiningtheknownartinthepriorartportion.Theclausedefininglocksas“electricormechanical…forapawlengagementsystem”andtheword“rotatably”inthepriorartportionisnottranslated.Itcausesabroadeninginthesense.Whenwritteninthisway,thesentence,withoutdefiningparts,pointstoalllocksoftheknownart: either “rotatable”ornot,eitherelectricornot, andeitherhavingapawlengagement systemornot.While the referred known lock is clearly specified in theoriginal,ithasabroadermeaninginthetranslateddocument.ThetranslatorcausedanunintentionalchangeinthemeaningoftheClaim,whichmayhavelegalconsequences,aswaspresentedintheprevioussectionregardingthewritingofclaimswithreferencetoArticle15oftheRegulationfortheImplementationofEPCPertainingtotheGrantofEuropeanPatents.Whatmakesthismistaketrivialisthatthesaidmistranslationisnotin the characterizing portion. The prior art portion refers to the technology alreadyknownintheart,anditisthecharacterizingportionwheretheprotectionisdemanded.Therefore,themistranslationherewouldnotaffectthescopeofprotectiontoagreatextent.

TheclaimaboveshowninTable2isanothergoodexampleofthemostcommonclaimtypeseeninpatentliterature.Thisclaimagainisatwopartclaimmadeupofasingle sentence, consisting of a prior art portion and a characterizing portion. These



An umbrella carrier (1) adaptedto receive a folded umbrella andprovidedwithattachmentmeans(5)forremovably securing it to an article ofluggage, and which includes a holster-like perforated support element (2)havingopenings(4,10)whichareclosedinternally characterised in that theopenings (4, 10) are closed by waterrepellentporousfabric.

Katlanmış bir şemsiyeyi içinealmakiçinadapteedilmişvebirbagajaçıkarılabilir şekilde takılmak içinbağlantyı elemanları (5) ile donatılmışolanveiçeridenkapananaçıklıklara(4,10) sahip, tabanca kılıfı şeklinde birdeliklidestekelemanı(2)ihtivaedenbirşemsiye taşıyıcısı (1) olup özelliği;açıklıkların(4,10)sudefedicigözeneklidokutarafındankapatılıyorolmasıdır.


233

portions are separated from each other with the help of sentence connector“characterizedinthat”,asinthepreviousexampleshowninTable1.

Thefunctionofthefirstpart,i.e.thepriorartportionisagaintoinformaboutthecurrentstatusoftheart,andthesecondportiongivesinformationaboutthenewfeaturetheinventionaddstothealreadyknownproduct.Thetranslatorpreservesthesefunctions of the claim, and translates it again in two separate parts and uses afunctionally equivalent sentence connector “özelliği”. Therefore, taking thepredetermined way of writing Claims in Turkish into consideration, the translatorproducesafunctionallyequivalentsentence.



Amethodofwrappingelongatedarticlesingroups,themethodcomprisingthestepsof:

feeding a first and a secondpocket (6; 7) continuously along a firstand, respectively, second path (P1, P2)having a common portion (T), the firstandthesecondpocket(6,7)comprising,respectively,afirstandasecondbottomwall(12;21),andfirstandsecondlateralwalls(13,22,23);

penetratingthesecondpocket(7)with the first pocket (6) along thecommonportion(T)byinsertingthefirstlateral walls (13) of the first pocket (6)betweenthesecondlateralwalls(22,23)of the second pockets (7) to transfer agroup (3) from the first to the secondpocket(6,7)togetherwithasheet(18)ofwrappingmaterial;

grippingafirstandasecondflap(57, 58), opposite and parallel to eachother, of the sheet (18) of wrappingmaterial between the first and secondlateralwalls(13,22,23);and

extracting the first lateral walls(13)fromthesecondpocket(7);

the method comprising thefurtherstepofcompressingthegroup(3)

Uzunparçalarıngruplarhalindeambalajlanmasına yönelik bir metotolup;bumetotşuadımlarıiçerir:

sırasıylabirbirincivebir ikincialtduvardan(12;21)vebirinciveikinciyan duvarlardan (13, 22, 23) oluşanbirinciveikinciceplerin(6,7),ortakbirkısma (T) sahip birinci ve ikinci geçit(P1, P2) boyunca aynı sırayla sürekliolarakbeslenmesi;

birambalajmalzemesitabakası(18)ilebirliktebirgrubu(3)birincidenikincicebe(6,7)aktarmak için,birincicebin (6) birinci yan duvarlarını (13)ikincicebin(7) ikinciyanduvararı (22,23) arasına sokarak, ortak kısım (T)boyuncabirincicebin(6)ikincicebe(7)geçirilmesi;

birinci ve ikinci yan duvarlar(13, 22, 23) arasında ambalajmalzemesi tabakasının (18)birbirleriyle karşılıklı ve paralel birincive ikinci kanatlarının (57, 58)kıstırılması;

birinciyanduvarların(13)ikincicepten(7)çıkartılması;

metot ayrıca, birinci yanduvarlar (13) ikinci cepten (7)çıkartılırken, birinci ve ikinci alt


234

The sample provided in Table 3, as clearly seen, does not have a sentenceconnector.Thiscausesambiguityastowherethepriorartportionendsandwherethecharacterizingportionstarts.Italsobecomesclearherethatthefunctionofthephrase“characterized in that” is not only providing a connection but also highlighting theseparateportionsofaclaim.

Here,thesentenceflowis inawaythatwouldbesuitableforbreakingupfortranslation;becausetheoriginalsentenceistoolonganditalreadyconsistsofsmallersentencestiedtoeachotherwiththehelpofsemicolons.Asthereisanobligationtouse a single sentence in a claim, the translator has to follow the same format; bothbecauseanyambiguityhastobepreservedasitwillfunctionasalegaltext,andbecausethereisapredeterminedwayofwritingandconstraintsinclaimwriting.

Intheoriginaltext,i.e.IC3,thereisanambiguityastowhetherithasapriorartportionoritconsistsonlyofcharacterizingportion.Thisambiguityisduetothelackofsentenceconnectorsintheclaim,whichwouldmeaninthefirstcase,thelastportionseparatedbyasemicolonisprotectedorinthelattercase,anyfeaturelistedintheclaimisprotected.Itisimportanttonotethatsuchambiguitycanbesolvedbyreferringtothedescriptiontexttounderstandwhatisincludedinthepriorartandwhatisnew.Infact,thisisexactlywhatthedescriptiontextisintendedfor:helpingintheinterpretationofClaims.

No matter if the description text helps translator distinguish the prior andcharacterizingportionsornot,thetranslatorshouldnottrytosolvethisambiguity,asthetext,howevertechnicalitmayseemisalsohavealegalfunction.Changinganythingintheclaim,orclarificationofanyambiguitymayeventuallymeanlossofrightseitherfortheinventorwhowouldlosehis/herpatentright,orfortheotherpossibleusersofthe patented product who may lose their right to use it because of the monopolygranted to thepatentholder.Anydisputeson the interpretationofClaimsare tobesolvedbycompetentauthorities, i.e. legalpersons in thiscase; it isnota taskof thetranslator who is responsible only for preserving the function and conveying themeaningofatextthroughtranslation.

TheambiguityintheoriginalClaimastowherethecharacterizingportionstartsispreservedinthetranslatedclaimasweseeinTable3,sincethetranslatorfollowedthesamepatternandusedthesamepunctuation.Contrarytotheadviceforclarificationor being concise in technical translation, the translator did not interfere in the textanyhow.Thismaybebecausethefunctionofthetextisasignificantdeterminantinthetranslationstrategyfollowed.

and a portion (56) of the sheet (18) ofwrappingmaterialbetweenthefirstandsecond bottom wall (12, 21) whenextractingthefirstlateralwalls(13)fromthesecondpocket(7).

duvarlar (12, 21) arasında, ambalajmalzemesi tabakasının (18) bir kısmı(56)vegrubun(3)sıkıştırılmasıadımınıiçerir.


235

4.2DependentClaims

DependentClaims,aretheClaimsthathaveareferencetooneormoreofthepreceding Claims, (cf. EPO Guide for Applicants, TPI Application Guide 2010; Loring,2005,Pienkos,2004).ThereisnolimitationtothenumberofdependentClaims,therecanbeasmanydependentClaimsasneeded, inordertolistthenewfeaturesoftheinvention for which patent protection is claimed in the most appropriate andcomprehensibleway.

ThefirstsampledependentclaimDC1providedbelowisinaformatthatismostwidely seen typeof claimstructure. The claimsentence, likeothers,hasa referenceportionandthecharacterizingportion.Thetranslatortranslatedthesentenceinawaythat the translated sentence will have the same pattern in the target language. Asadvised in patent application guides available in Turkish, the translated claim has“özelliği”as the sentenceconnector,which is sure tohave the same functionas theoriginaldid.

The translator here paid particular attention to provide exact equivalents ofterms,andthisfeaturewasevidentthroughoutthesamplepatentapplicationdocumentSD1.The translator tried to findanexactequivalent forsuch termsas“selvage”and“link”,andattemptedtogivetheexactmeaningintwowords:ratherthanborrowing“selvage”, s/he translated it as “kilit karşılığı” or rather than translating “link” as“bağlantı” which would cause additional meanings that may even refer to a“connection”ortoa“circuit”,s/hetranslateditas“bağlantıelemanı”toreferpreciselytothespecificpartmentioned.Thisdemonstrates that thetranslator isawareof thelegalfunctionofthetranslatedtextandthepossibleoutcomesthatmaybefacedincases/hechangesthemeaningofwords.

In the next example of a dependent claim DC2 below in Table 5, there is asentence connector that is not as common as characterized in that in claimwriting.However,inwhichhasthesamefunctionascharacterizedinthat;thatis,signallingtheendof referencepartand thebeginningof characterizingportion,which is themainstructureineachClaim.

Table4.DC1anditstranslation

DC1 TranslationofDC1

Theselvageaccordingtoclaim1,characterized in that said pivot (7) issubstantially cylindrical, its ends (8)having a smaller diameter and beingsuitable to be accommodated in saidholes(5)ofthelinks(4).

İstem1’egörekilitkarşılığıolupözelliği;bahsigeçenpivotun (7)büyükoranda silindirik olması, uçlarının (8)daha küçük çaplara sahip olması vebağlantı elemanlarının (4) bahsi geçendeliklerine (5) yerleşmeye uygunşekildeolmasıdır.


236

Thetranslatortranslatedthesentenceconnector“inwhich”as“özelliği”,whichisgenerallyacceptedastheequivalenttermfor“characterizedinthat”.Thisisaclearindication that the translator here is aware of the function the phrase “in which”possesses,andisalsoawareofthetargettexttraditioninwhichthesentenceconnectorpreferredmostisözelliği.Inthislight,thetranslatorwassuccessfulincreatingthesameeffectintermsoffunctionwithoutleavinganydoubtastothemeaningofthisclaim.

UnlikeDC1andDC2, thethirdsampledependentclaim,DC3,doesnothaveasentence connector. The translated version of DC3 does not include a sentenceconnector, either. It can be seen that the translator did not change the sentencestructurewhiletranslatingtheclaim.Theoriginalsentenceconsistsoftwopartswithdifferentfunctions,similartothepreviousexamplesofdependentClaims:areferenceandacharacterizingportion.Here,thedifferenceisthatthecharacterizingportiondoesnotbeginwithamarkersuchas“wherein”,orinotherwords,sentenceconnectorisnotpresentinthiscase.However,itisobvioustothereaderwherethereferenceendsandwhere the characterizing portion starts. In order to preserve this structure, thetranslator uses “olup” at the end of the first part and thuswarns the reader that aseparate part with a different function is coming. Therefore, at sentence level, thereference and characterizing functions of two parts and in general, overall the legalfunctionoftheclaimispreserved.



An umbrella carrier (1) as claimed inclaim 1 in which the perforated supportelement (2) is provided as a substantiallycylindricaltube.

İstem1’e gore şemsiye taşıyıcısı (1)olup, özelliği, delikli destek elemanının (2)esasen silindirik bir tüp olarak tedarikedilmesidir.



Amethod as claimed in Claim 1, andcomprisingthefurtherstepoffoldingthesheet(18)ofwrappingmaterial intoaUbypushingthe sheet (18) of wrappingmaterial into thesecondpocket(7)bymeansoftheends(45)ofthefirstlateralwalls(13).

İstem 1'de açıklandığı şekliyle birmetotolup,ayrıcabirinciyanduvarların(13)uçları (45) aracılığıyla ambalaj malzemesitabakasının (18) ikinci cebin (7) içinedoğruitilmesiyle, ambalaj malzemesi tabakasının(18) U şeklinde katlanmasından oluşan biradımdahaiçerir.


237

ThefourthdependentclaimDC4,similartoallpreviousclaimexamples,consists

oftwoparts;whatmakesitdifferentisthesentenceconnector“wherein”,thesecondmostcommonsentenceconnectorencounteredinpatentliterature.Thetranslatorhereagain,awareofthespecificwritingstyleofpatentClaims,translatedtheclaimaccordingtothetargettextnormstoproduceafunctionallyequivalenttext.

Anothertokenimportantinthisclaimisthetranslationoftheterm“process”as“proses”ratherthan“süreç”whichistheTurkishequivalentfortheoriginalterm.Here,asthesubjectmatteroftheinventionisinthefieldofchemistry,thetranslatorusestheterm as used in the technical field and do not need to apply any clarification ordomestication.Thisisagainduetothefunctionofthetext:theClaimsareintendedtogiveinformationtothe“personsskilledintheart”,nottoalayperson.

5.DiscussionandConclusion

Inthelightofthetheoreticalframeworkandtheanalysisabove,adiscussionregardingthe issues this paper set out to address will be provided in this section, alongwithimplications for further researchandpractice. In linewith the first claim thatpatentdocuments should be considered as a separate specialized subfield of technicaltranslation, the distinct characteristics of the language used in each part of thesedocumentswereprovided.Ascanbeseenfromthepresentationoftextualconventionsandexamples,thesetextscontaintechnicalandscientificinformationandterminology,whichweredefinedaspropertiesoftechnicaltextsbyvariousscholars(cf.Hirschorn,1980;Erten,1997).Inadditiontothis,morerecentapproachestotechnicaltextgenrementioned use of a certain way of writing, or style (Byrne, 2006), which iscomprehensivelydefinedforpatentwritinginvarious legalguidesandbyregulations(Taner,2011).Inparallelwiththeseideasinliterature,thepatentdocuments,especiallytheClaims,haveauniquestyleandlanguagestructure.Atthispoint,asseenaboveintheprevioussectionsandasaresponsetothesecondissueraisedinthispaper,itcanbesuggestedthatpatent translationmightbeconsideredaspecificareaof technicaltranslation.

Thisspecializationrelatestothebackgroundinformationrequiredonthepartofthe translator. Finch (1969) linked the quality of the technical translation to thebackgroundknowledgeof translator in the field concerned.With their legal functionalongsidethetechnicaltextualproperties,thepatenttranslationsrequireexpertiseinthis specific text type. As a specific example, even though using the strategy ofreformulation of sentences would not be a problem for the description, the Claimsnecessitate the use of long sentences which should adhere relatively strictly to the

Table7.DC4anditsTranslation


TheprocessofClaim1whereinstepbincludesreactingthestartingmaterialwithanamideoranacetal.

İstem 1’deki proses olup, burada bbasamağıbaşlangıçmaddesininbiramidyadabirasetallereaksiyonasokulmasınıiçerir.


238

orderingandwording conventions specified for theTLpatent texts,otherwisemightchangethescopeofprotection.Thisisveryimportantinthatitisthetargettext,notthesourcetext,thatdefinesthescopeofprotectioninadesignatedcountryincasesoflegaldisputes.Anothervitalrestrictionrelatingtothis,forexample,isthatthetranslatorcannot, aswouldusuallydo, clarifyor resolveambiguities; since thismightmeananextensionand/orreductioninthescopeofpatentprotection.Inthisrespect,translatingpatentswould require expertise and specialization in this specific genre of technicaltranslation,asFinch(1969)suggested.Therefore,translationdecisionsareguidednotonlybythetextitselfandspecifictextualandterminologicalconventions,butalsobyallthe functions -be it technical or legal- they are meant to serve, as would mostfunctionalisttheoriesoftranslation(cf.Venuti,2000;Munday,2001)argue.

All in all, writing and translation of patent documents, especially of Claims,demandamorespecificapproachbythetranslatorbothintermsofknowledgeinthetechnical fieldand in termsof theexpertise inwhat thisspecificgenreof translationdemands.Thepreviousliteraturemainlydescribedthepresentsituationandpresentedexamples for patent translation (e.g. Daldeniz, 2004) but did not provide acomprehensive discussion on these various factors that shape translator’s decision-making.Inaddition,thisstudyadvancesthepreviousliteratureinthatitassertsthatitisnotmerelythetechnicalandterminologicalknowledge,but infacttheexpertise inthis specific genre and style of writing that brings quality in translation: therefore,translationofpatentsshouldnotberegardedasasecondarytaskbutaprofessionandspecializationinitsownright.

Thedescriptionsregardingpartsofpatentdocumentsandanalysesofexampleclaimspresented inthispapermanifestthemselvesdirectly intranslationpractice. Inthis respect, this studymight serve as a practical and compact introduction for theprofessionalandprospectivetranslatorsaimingtospecializeinpatenttranslation.Withthe strategies and restrictions discussed with reference to real examples from theClaims,thisstudymightcontributetopatenttranslationpracticeandinthetrainingoftranslators.Inthispaper,thesentencestructureinClaimswaselaboratedon;however,itwasnotpossibletopresentanalysesofotherpartsofthepatentdocumentswithinthe scopeof this article.Asan implication for further research,more studies canbeconductedonthediscourseofseparatepartsofpatentdocuments,andsyntacticandlexicalanalysesmightbepresentedforthereferenceoftranslatorsspecializinginpatenttranslation.


239

References

Ascheron,C.andKickuth,A.(2005).Makeyourmarkinscience:Creativity,presenting,publishing,andpatents:Aguideforyoungscientists.Hoboken,NJ:Wiley.

Byrne,J.(2006).Technicaltranslation:Usabilitystrategiesfortranslatingtechnicaldocumentation.Dordrecht,Netherlands:Springer.

Byrne,J.(2007).Caveattranslator:UnderstandingthelegalconsequencesofErrorsinProfessionalTranslation.JournalofSpecialisedTranslation2007,7,2-24.

Carr,F.K.(2009).PatentsHandbook.NorthCarolina:McFarland.

Daldeniz,E.(2004).Kültürlerarasıaktarımdadilveçeviriolgusunabakış–Birmetinalttürüolarakpatentmetinlerinintürkçedeoluşumserüveni.(UnpublishedPhDDissertation)İstanbulÜniversitesi,İstanbul.

Erten,A.(1997).Approachestotechnicaltranslation.ÇeviribilimveUygulamalarıDergisi,7,17-22.

Estrin,H.A.(1963).Technicalandprofessionalwriting:Apracticalanthology.NewYork:Harcourt,BraceandWorld.

EuropeanPatentOffice(May2010).HowtogetaEuropeanpatent:Guideforapplicants.13thed.Retrievedfromhttp://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/8266ED0366190630C12575E10051F40E/$File/guide_for_applicants_part1_05_10_en.pdf

EuropeanPatentConvention[EPC](1973).14thEdition,August2010.EuropeanPatentOffice.Retrievedfrom:http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/7bacb229e032863dc12577ec004ada98/$FILE/EPC_14th_edition.pdf

Finch,C.(1969).Anapproachtotechnicaltranslation:Anintroductoryguideforscientificreaders.OxfordandNewYork:PergamonPress.

Harhoff,D.;Hoisl,K.;Reichl,B.andvanPottelsberghedelaPotterie,B.(2007).Patentvalidationatthecountrylevel-roleoffeesandtranslationcosts.CEPRDiscussionPaperNo6565.

Hirschhorn,H.H.(1980).Writingforscience,industry,andtechnology.NewYork:D.VanNostrand.

Hitchcock,D.(2009).Patentsearchingmadeeasy(5thEdition).California:Nolo.


240

Lefevere,A.(1992).Translation,history,culture:Asourcebook.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Loring,D.(2005).Thepatentlitigation.Chicago:AmericanBarAssociation.

Lyon,M.(2005).Japanesepatents:Practicalcourseintechnicaltranslation.Rockville,USA:SchreiberPublishing.

Maksimova,E.A.(2009).Russiantranslation:Theoryandpractice.Hoboken,NJ:TaylorandFrancis.

Mimick,R.;Smith,W.E.andThompson,M.(2005).Businessdiagnostics.Canada:TraffordPublishing.

Mohan,C.(2011,May12).Howtowriteaneffectivedescriptionforyourpatentapplication.Retrievedfrom:http://ezinearticles.com/?how-to-write-an-effective-description-for-your-patent-application&id=6262562

Munday,J.(2001).Introducingtranslationstudies–Theoriesandapplications.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Pasa,B.andBenacchio,A.(2005).Theharmonizationofcivilandcommerciallaw.Hungary:AkaprintNyomda.

PatentCooperationTreaty[PCT](1970)AsinforcefromApril1,2002.WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization.Retrievedfromhttp://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/atoc.htm

Pienkos,J.T.(2004).Thepatentguidebook.Chicago:AmericanBarAssociation.

Sheremetyeva,S.(2003).Naturallanguageanalysisofpatentclaims.InPatent'03ProceedingsofTheAcl-2003WorkshopOnPatentCorpusProcessing(pp.66-73).Stroudsburg,PA,USA:AssociationforComputationalLinguistics.

Sheremetyeva,S.andNirenburg,S.(1996).Generatingpatentclaims.InProceedingsofThe8thInternationalWorkshoponNaturalLanguageGeneration.Herstmonceux,Sussex,UK.

Shinmori,A.,Okumura,M.,Marukawa,Y.andIwayama,M.(2003).PatentClaimProcessingForReadability:StructureAnalysisandTermExplanation.ACL-03WorkshoponPatentCorpusProcessing,pp.56-65.

Taner,G.(2011)AdescriptivestudyontheTurkishtranslationsofEuropeanpatentdocuments.(UnpublishedMAThesis)HacettepeUniversity,InstituteofSocialSciences,Ankara.

Tankha,A.,Bout,L.,Fernandes,S.andK.S.,S.(2011).Patentyouridea.Bloomington:Authorhouse.


241

TürkPatentEnstitüsü(January,2010).Patent-faydalımodelbaşvurukılavuzu.Ankara:TPE.

Venuti,L.(Ed.)(2000)Thetranslationstudiesreader.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Zerling,K.(2010,January).Translatingapatent:translators'templates.RetrievedfromTranslationJournal,Vol.14No.1:http://translationjournal.net/journal/51patents.htm

551SayılıPatentHaklarınınKorunmasıHakkındaKanunHükmündeKararname.(1995).TC.ResmiGazete,22326,27Haziran1995.

551SayılıPatentHaklarınınKorunmasıHakkındaKanunHükmündeKararnameninUygulamaŞekliniGösterirYönetmelik.(1995).TC.ResmiGazete,22454,5Kasım1995.

LegalDocuments

EuropeanPatentConvention,14thEdition,2010andImplementingRegulationstotheEPC,2010

availableontheofficialwebsiteofEPO:http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/epc.html

ConventionEstablishingTheWorldintellectualPropertyOrganization(1967)AsAmendedOn

September28,1979.WIPO,14July1967.

PatentCooperationTreatyavailableontheofficialwebsiteofWIPO:

http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/atoc.htm

RegulationsUnderthePatentCooperationTreatyavailableontheofficialwebsiteofWIPO:

http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/

DecreeLaw551PertainingtotheProtectionofPatentRights,1995availableontheofficial

websiteofTPI:http://www.tpe.gov.tr/dosyalar/EN_khk/Patent_DecreeLaw.pdf

TheImplementingRegulationsUnderTheDecree-LawNo551PertainingToTheProtectionof

PatentRights.availableontheofficialwebsiteofTPI:

http://www.tpe.gov.tr/dosyalar/EN_khk/Patent_Regulation.pdf