英文專利書攥寫之英文文法問題 - 專利

Brianna avatar
By Brianna
at 2010-12-01T16:37

Table of Contents


今天我在練習寫英文專利說明書的時候

因為語法的問題和同事起了爭執 事實如下：

A computer has a case equipped with a plate

provided for connecting to a server with

two extending parts.

(基於保密原則，上術名詞全部都有代換過)

今天我在最後加了with two extending parts

我認為它當然是形容server

但是同事的看法是，我把with two extending parts放在最後面

會造成語意不清

因為句子的解讀不同

with two extending parts 可以解釋為形容

computer, case, plate, server

請問大家的意見如何？在上述的例子中

with two extending parts 是

1.只能用來形容server。

2.可以因為解讀的不同，用來形容computer, case, plate, server ?

五樓你說說看？

--
Tags: 專利

All Comments

Rebecca avatar
By Rebecca
at 2010-12-04T13:10
2 (偶是一樓)
Zora avatar
By Zora
at 2010-12-07T17:23
還沒輪到偶............
Emily avatar
By Emily
at 2010-12-12T02:44
2
Vanessa avatar
By Vanessa
at 2010-12-13T11:29
2 不過你同事有提出別的寫法嗎? 有點好奇XD
Jack avatar
By Jack
at 2010-12-15T23:37
2
Madame avatar
By Madame
at 2010-12-18T14:57
2
Kelly avatar
By Kelly
at 2010-12-22T00:56
本領域XX人員又不是只看文法來決定語意是否不清~~題外話
Carolina Franco avatar
By Carolina Franco
at 2010-12-22T15:21
有時候覺得過度關心於文法上的枝微末節不知道是董太多還是
Sandy avatar
By Sandy
at 2010-12-24T11:32
還是只是在核稿時候為了證明自己(((有料)))~~見仁見智...
Poppy avatar
By Poppy
at 2010-12-24T16:04
那是因為 樓上沒碰過後面的爭訟吧.........
Skylar Davis avatar
By Skylar Davis
at 2010-12-25T12:04
到了上法庭時黑的都能說成白的 ..............
Tristan Cohan avatar
By Tristan Cohan
at 2010-12-26T02:56
更別說是本來就有模糊空間的地方 爭點吵不完摟.......
Kelly avatar
By Kelly
at 2010-12-29T03:35
是這樣嗎~還是通常沒打過訴訟的會特別拿這來講?~(有料)
Adele avatar
By Adele
at 2010-12-30T02:06
做到現在就沒遇過專門在這個枝微末節上爭辯~
Frederic avatar
By Frederic
at 2010-12-31T17:10
訴訟打的爭點多的是可以打~~拿這種通常是沒東西打才拿~
實務上也沒有效果~通常作戲給(不董的)客戶看~~
我說的枝微末節是指上述純文法之討論~請別以偏概全
Yedda avatar
By Yedda
at 2011-01-01T13:53
回歸專利的本質是促進產業發展,不是在於推廣或者鞏固文化
Edith avatar
By Edith
at 2011-01-02T10:35
傳統~~
Candice avatar
By Candice
at 2011-01-03T03:07
說明書的本質在於能讓該項技藝者據以實施~該項技藝者
Susan avatar
By Susan
at 2011-01-07T15:21
一般並非僅單看句的文法來判斷事物吧~ 還包含前後文以及該
項技藝的最少普通知識~~
Charlotte avatar
By Charlotte
at 2011-01-12T01:34
專門把特別題材放大嚴謹話來鞏固自己的專業也不是不好
Gary avatar
By Gary
at 2011-01-16T21:14
見仁見智而已~~實務上有沒有用~自己有再接觸的就自己明瞭
Connor avatar
By Connor
at 2011-01-20T14:48
我自己的經驗是很少向licensor提出此類文法上議題 即使提
Kyle avatar
By Kyle
at 2011-01-24T11:53
出也是為釐清而非做為主要non-infringement argument 若
Freda avatar
By Freda
at 2011-01-25T03:50
該領域人士配合整體圖文可明知 則此類文法議題即使上法院
Daniel avatar
By Daniel
at 2011-01-27T03:47
claim construction應能排除其疑慮 過度爭執於此反而會讓
licensor看破手腳
Hamiltion avatar
By Hamiltion
at 2011-01-27T06:09
訴訟本身就不多,每十件申請案不知道有沒有兩三件要打美國訴訟
若打訴訟居然是要打簡單的連接關係的訴訟,那這種說明書也只能
Victoria avatar
By Victoria
at 2011-01-31T16:02
說是爛了. 若連簡單的連接關係沒弄清楚,更複雜的地方一定會
寫得更不好,我相信一篇很多地方都寫不好的說明書,當然不夠格
來打訴訟.
Todd Johnson avatar
By Todd Johnson
at 2011-02-01T11:08
n大說得有理 明槍易擋 暗箭難防阿 ( ￣ c￣)y▂ξ
Rae avatar
By Rae
at 2011-02-02T04:01
k大能不能舉個例子讓人參考參考呢?
Tom avatar
By Tom
at 2011-02-03T04:51
claim construction 會被文法所誤導嗎？文法錯誤是一回
Blanche avatar
By Blanche
at 2011-02-03T05:55
事，文法範圍過大又是一回事。就避免解讀爭議，自然是越
Edward Lewis avatar
By Edward Lewis
at 2011-02-07T21:03
明確越好。 我個人認為寫法只要沒有錯誤，都可以，只是
Kelly avatar
By Kelly
at 2011-02-09T00:28
就法規的角度"precise,consise, clear"是一致的要求
Zora avatar
By Zora
at 2011-02-11T19:29
concise
Faithe avatar
By Faithe
at 2011-02-16T09:09
"precise, concise, and clear" 謝謝指正
Elvira avatar
By Elvira
at 2011-02-21T05:04
you'd be amazed how many patent litigations are
decided on these seemingly trivial grammar issues...
Damian avatar
By Damian
at 2011-02-24T15:09
Wrong vs Uncertain
Anonymous avatar
By Anonymous
at 2011-02-26T15:03
Significant uncertainties may be regarded as drafting
errors in nature. To which, should claim construction not
Michael avatar
By Michael
at 2011-03-02T07:44
be misinterpreted, then what else!
John avatar
By John
at 2011-03-06T05:42
Please define "significant uncertainties" or ur mean
this case is a "significant uncertainties" ?
u mean
George avatar
By George
at 2011-03-08T05:40
then you improve your english first
Odelette avatar
By Odelette
at 2011-03-10T09:13
the name of the game vs the wrong name of the game
Jessica avatar
By Jessica
at 2011-03-12T03:39
uncertain usage vs wrong usage
so this is ur reading comprehension ?
Caitlin avatar
By Caitlin
at 2011-03-16T14:39
stay to talk something or FO
Valerie avatar
By Valerie
at 2011-03-16T18:57
about
Dorothy avatar
By Dorothy
at 2011-03-20T22:30
so this is only thing dat u are capable of ?
go to school please, i'd be glad to be ur student
Dinah avatar
By Dinah
at 2011-03-24T18:37
維大力?
Gilbert avatar
By Gilbert
at 2011-03-25T06:47
"文法錯誤是一回事文法範圍過大又是一回事" For you
Ethan avatar
By Ethan
at 2011-03-27T11:02
走在巴黎的街道上，你不能期待不會看到狗大便
Gary avatar
By Gary
at 2011-03-29T12:13
清晨的巴黎，除了新鮮的空氣，美麗的建築外，還有隨處可
見的狗屎
Gilbert avatar
By Gilbert
at 2011-03-30T23:00
國文真是優美阿 (感概)
Tracy avatar
By Tracy
at 2011-04-04T18:43
麵包店內親切的麵包師傅烘焙好的麵包，可以讓我忘記大便
造成的疑憾
Elizabeth avatar
By Elizabeth
at 2011-04-08T08:03
遺
PS:巴黎的麵包名符其實的好吃
Lauren avatar
By Lauren
at 2011-04-11T04:24
claim construction 是否會被文法所誤導? for you
Iris avatar
By Iris
at 2011-04-16T01:27
我喜歡先禮後兵。I can tolerate this once not twice.
Carol avatar
By Carol
at 2011-04-20T02:06
after twice, this will be a turnaround situation
Emma avatar
By Emma
at 2011-04-24T06:16
和氣生財 和氣生財 對討論意見不同有爭執是還ok.
Irma avatar
By Irma
at 2011-04-28T18:16
但出現無關的不雅之詞就不好

平行輸入的問題

Rebecca avatar
By Rebecca
at 2010-11-29T23:12
不好意思 因為之前沒有寫清楚 產品為原產地美國A廠商 ( 中文譯名為B) 朋友是在美國買 多的就在網路上轉售 (應該是俗稱水貨吧?) 現在A公司的亞洲代理商 主張 1. 他是獨家代理商 所以別人不可以販售該產品 2. 他有把B註冊商標 (朋友有去查商標的確有被註冊了) 所以任何賣家不可以刊 ...

迴避設計團隊招募

Susan avatar
By Susan
at 2010-11-25T11:01
文章怎麼不見了 - ...

「海峽兩岸智慧財產權保護合作協議」

Mary avatar
By Mary
at 2010-11-25T00:15
其實是通通樂（誤） 根據敝所解釋及對外公告 sipo 那邊的規定 其實在先申請案如果是台灣案，申請人國籍是沒有限制的 但如果後案為大陸案，並要主張台灣案優先權， 必須該大陸案申請人至少有一為台灣國籍才行 這段其實是這樣解釋的（茶） 當然也是有應對的方法 只是就頗麻煩這樣...XD 以上請參考，有錯並請 ...

「海峽兩岸智慧財產權保護合作協議」

Liam avatar
By Liam
at 2010-11-24T11:58
聽說幾天前IPO曾找了幾家大型事務所通通氣(還是通通風?) TIPO對於台灣案主張大陸優先權會遵循WIPO互惠原則 但SIPO對於大陸案主張台灣優先權竟有申請人國籍的限制 亦即台灣案申請人之一必須是台灣人或大陸人 因此對於國外申請人(無台灣籍或大陸籍)先在台灣提申的專利案 之後在大陸申請時似乎無法主張台灣優先 ...

加州律師考試心得分享

Victoria avatar
By Victoria
at 2010-11-23T15:49
※ [本文轉錄自 studyabroad 看板 #1Cwt71Us ] 作者: movier (I am movier) 看板: studyabroad 標題: Re: [分享] 加州律師考試心得分享 時間: Tue Nov 23 15:48:15 2010 感謝sunfan版友詳細的分享 有一點須先強調 ...