1997

Scientific literacy and patent translation

Throughout the years, we have encountered many circumstances where patent translation was underrated and assigned to translators inadequate to cope with technical contents.

Given the pure technical content of patent applications, it is not surprising to see incorrect translations in various databases in which some very basic concepts of natural sciences, engineering etc. were not used correctly.

According to OECD, PISA, scientific literacy is defined as "The ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen. A scientifically literate person is willing to engage in reasoned discourse about science and technology which requires the competencies to explain phenomena scientifically, evaluate and design scientific enquiry, and interpret data and evidence scientifically." (click to read more)

According to the definition in Wikipedia, "Scientific literacy or science literacy encompasses written, numerical, and digital literacy as they pertain to understanding science, its methodology, observations, and theories. Scientific literacy is chiefly concerned with an understanding of the scientific method, units and methods of measurement, empiricism and understanding of statistics in particular correlations and qualitative versus quantitative observations and aggregate statistics, as well as a basic understanding of core scientific fields, such as physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, geology and computation.

In this context, it's my point of view that a patent translator should at least be capable to understand the basic phenomena and the basic principles of physics, chemistry, biology, calculus, information technologies etc. to cope with the substantially pure technical aspects of patent applications. Otherwise, a translator may not be able to differentiate the following exemplary pairs of terms correctly when it comes to a technical text:
'heat' vs. 'temperature',
'power' vs. 'force',
'compound' vs. 'composition',
'speed' vs. 'velocity',
'mass' vs. 'weight',
'separation' vs. 'dissociation',
'dissociation' vs. 'decomposition',
'to hydrate' vs. 'to hydride',
'dehydrating' vs. 'dehydriding',
'sulfide' vs. 'sulfite',
'differentiation (maths)' vs. 'differentiation (genetics)',
'residue' vs. 'remainder' with respect to a Markush structure,
'integration (maths)' and 'becoming integrated ',
or wherein an 'upstream gene' is construed as an 'upward-flowing gene' without knowing that the term 'upstream' here relates to the positioning of a gene in a RNA molecule towards the 5' end thereof, etc.

It's ok, I don't want to take up more of your time reading these simple examples, but had to point them out to show how I relate patent translation to scientific literacy, or better said, to the "lack" of scientific literacy.

On the other hand, a patent application can be seen to have two aspects. The first one can be covered under its technical nature. Actually this aspect of a patent application targets the potential users of that patent, or invention, which is assumed to bring a technical solution to a problem in order to make our daily life easier, or to bring more comfort to our daily life, to make a production process more energy-efficient, or to provide the use of a chemical substance to bring an absolute solution to cancer, hopefully!

The second aspect of a patent application, in turn, can be seen to target rather its inventor or proprietor.

More explicitly, the second aspect of a patent application can be addressed under its legal nature. And so, a patent application can be taken as a legal text, which delimits the rights claimed by that application under intellectual property laws—just as the freedom of one individual is regulated by law to end when it infringes upon the freedom of others. In other words, every patent has its own protected scope, meaning that it is not entitled to infringe upon another patent's protection scope, and conversely, its protected scope is not to be infringed upon by other patents as regulated by intellectual property laws.

Here, the protection scope of a patent is determined using its claim or claims, which are composed of words, only words (okay, sometimes using words plus figures)!

That's all it is!

Words come together to draft a patent application and to define its scope.

Keywords are used during the search phase, to establish if a claimed invention is novel and involves an inventive step.

What is assessed during the examination phase is the combination of words.

For which a patent is granted is based again on the words.

When that patent is submitted for validation in another country, it is again the words which become the subject of translation.

When there is a dispute between the patent owner and another party, for instance, it is again and again the words to which the courts turn to in order to settle the dispute.

Therefore, the wording of a patent application is of utmost importance, particularly when drafting or translating the claims. Just as a simple example, the two terms 'consisting of sth' or 'consisting in sth' may seem very similar.

However, referring to the Cambridge Dictionary, 'consist of sth' means 'to be made of or formed from something', whereas 'consist in sth' means 'to have something as a main and necessary part or quality'. So, when drafting or translating a patent claim, an incorrect use of these terms would have two entirely different outcomes in terms of the protection scope of a claim.

This is just a simple example among many others to show the crucial influence of merely two letters, 'in' and 'of', on the legal aspect and outcome of a patent application.

Taken all together, a patent application requires a translator to have a notion of science & technology, as well as to be fastidious and competent enough to cope with both the technical aspect and the legal aspect of an application.