George Hopkins Apr 14, 2011:

Logic Logical Cynthia... But look what has happened to words such as alternative and bilge pump.

Cynthia Coan Apr 13, 2011:

Precise wording If the wording of each phrase has to be so very precise, I suppose "characterized by the fact that" would be out of the question(?)

Karin and Folke Nettelblad (Folia Textproduktion HB) Apr 13, 2011:

Characterized by Well, with the experience of more than 1,000 full patents translated from English into Swedish, I agree that "characterized by" is more common than "characterized in", but of course it depends on the sentence construction. If the succeeding phrase is a noun phrase, or a gerund construction ("characterized by being composed, at least, by 90% to 55% of XXX"), it is usually "by", but before clauses like yours, I would say that it is predominantly "in".

And yes, all patents might seem verbose and complicated, but that is mainly due to the degree of precision needed. If you try, it would be quite difficult to cut down on the verbosity and still keep the same precision.

Åsa Schoening Apr 13, 2011:

Characterized in that or characterized by I just saw Nils Anderssons response. I have personally not used "characterized by," but it is listed as an option on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web site on instructions for proper claim construction:
(ii) a characterizing portion - preceded by the words "characterized in that," "characterized by," "wherein the improvement comprises," or any other words to the same effect - stating concisely the technical features which, in combination with the features stated under (i), it is desired to protect.
Link: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1800_182... (I still prefer "characterized in that," which is listed first, but I guess it also depends on what follows, and perhaps "characterized by" would be preferable for some sentence constructions. In any event, it is always helpful to have options to work with, especially since patents tend to be tricky in various respects.)

Paul Lambert (asker) Apr 12, 2011:

That is what I am afraid of... Thanks Åsa.
Yes, indeed. Luckily, the translator is not being defensive and sincerely wants to do a good job. However, I do think he might have bitten off more than he can chew. Oddly, half the text was in Finnish (which I cannot read) and I was asked just to check the "linguistic issues", the second part is in Swedish. I think I will wash my hands of this before it becomes a nightmare.

Åsa Schoening Apr 12, 2011:

In a patent, every word is open to scrutiny Paul, if the translation isn't faithful to the original, then I think your harsh review would be justified by the fact that (at least in theory), every word of the text has been reviewed as the text went from being a first draft to eventually becoming a filed patent application and then eventually being issued as a patent. Obviously all parts are important, but the specific and precise language of the patent claims must be respected and Claim 1 is the most important claim. If an opposition is lodged against the patent or if the patent is ever involved in an infringement suit, every word will be scrutinized over and over again. Hence, the translator has to assume that everything in the text is there for a reason and that the text has undergone several reviews.

George Hopkins Apr 12, 2011:

Not only patents Some translators have a tendency to interpret rather than translate. Calling a spade a spade is not enough; it has to be shovelled about a bit.

Paul Lambert (asker) Apr 12, 2011:

Thanks Thanks Åsa.
It only reinforces for me why I tend to stay away from such texts myself and why I have to be so brutally harsh in my review.

Åsa Schoening Apr 12, 2011:

You cannot really edit the original by streamlining the text and making it less verbose or less complex, although you should obviously make sure that the translation reads well and is grammatically correct. Patent claim construction is a very specific task and the patent attorney drafting the claims has to adhere to strict guidelines. I would advise you to proceed with caution and to ensure above all that there are no omissions in the translation. Also, patent terminology is very specific. The only standard translation for "kännetecknat därav" is "characterized in" (or "characterised in" for the British market), but there are no synonyms or equivalents. You cannot use an equivalent just to "mix things up." If the same term or expression is used 100 times, it has to be translated the same way 100 times. Similarly, there are standard translations for abstract, field of invention, embodiment, patent claim, etc. If you are unfamiliar with the terms, you will have to double-check each one in a reliable dictionary.

Paul Lambert (asker) Apr 12, 2011:

So far so good... Some really good answers so far. It is not so often that I get to do such patents (in fact I am only reviewing another translator's work in this case). I was just wondering offhand if those of you who do patents more often find the texts to be unnecessarily verbose and complicated in general. (?)