possible benefits from training in Scheme programming in patent translation - comp.lang.scheme

ディスカッション possible benefits from training in Scheme programming in patent translation のメッセージ

Benjamin L. Russell

プロフィールを表示

詳細オプション 8月20日, 午後2:42

ニュースグループ: comp.lang.scheme

差出人: Benjamin L. Russell <DekuDekup...@Yahoo.com>

日付: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:42:34 +0900

ローカル: 2009年8月20日(木) 午後2:42

件名: Re: [semi-OT] possible benefits from training in Scheme programming in patent translation

  投稿者に返信
  |
  転送 | 印刷 | スレッドを表示
  | オリジナルを表示
  | このメッセージを報告 | この投稿者のメッセージを検索
  

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:55:32 -0700, Bakul Shah

<bakul+use...@bitblocks.com> wrote:
>Benjamin L. Russell wrote:
>> At first, this process seemed very tedious and difficult, until I
>> noticed that treating these structural components in the clause as if
>> they were S-expressions in a Scheme program, and then mapping
>> equivalent components of the English clause to semi-corresponding
>> components of the Japanese (mis-)translation speeded up and simplified
>> this process greatly, even though the correspondence was not exact.

>> For some reason, I have discovered that this kind of mental
>> equivalence seems to proceed much more smoothly between S-expressions
>> in Scheme programs and claims in patent documents than between other
>> kinds of expressions in other functional programming languages and the
>> same claims in patent documents. For example, I have not had similar
>> experiences with finding equivalences between expressions in even
>> Haskell programs and the claims in patent documents; Haskell
>> expressions seem to be more equivalent to mathematical equations than
>> to claims in patent documents.

>Some examples to show this equivalence would be nice.

How about the following example (following this paragraph)? Most
readers of this newsgroup do not read Japanese; therefore, the
following example assumes that another translator has already
translated a patent claim from Japanese to English, and that I need to
check the translation for accuracy. In order to do so, I need to
break down the claim into its semantic components and determine
whether the semantics of the translation and the original are
equivalent. Here is a contrived example, assuming that somebody has
developed an _in vitro,_ as opposed to _in vivo,_ remote control
device and receptor that can be optionally mounted on the ear
(similarly to the ear-mounted transmitter/receivers worn by Agents in
the motion picture saga _The Matrix_) and used as a controller for a
video gaming device; please note that since I am not actually writing
a Scheme program, but only using thought patterns derived from writing
S-expressions in Scheme programs, this is merely pseudo-Scheme, not
actual Scheme:

What is claimed is:

1. An _in vitro_ remote-control device, the device comprising:
a mounting unit for mounting the remote-control device on a
portion of the head of a user;
a transmitter unit, further comprising:
a neurotransmitter unit transmitting neural impulses to a
brain of the user;
a neuro-digital conversion unit converting neural
impulses to digital signals;
a receiver unit, further comprising:
a neuroreceptor unit receiving neural impulses from the
brain;
a digital-neuro conversion unit converting digital
signals to neural impulses; and
a power source unit converting thermal radiation from brain
cells into electricity, the electricity powering the remote-control
device;
wherein:
the transmitter unit transmits digital signals in response to
neural impulses; and
the receiver unit transmits neural impulses in response to
digital signals.

The above-mentioned claim translates roughly into my personal variety
of pseudo-Scheme as follows (apologies for any deviations from the
syntax or semantics of actual Scheme):

(claim-define (_in-vitro_-remote-control-device mounting-unit
transmitter-unit receiver-unit power-source-unit)
(claim-comprising
(mounting-unit
(lambda (head user)
(mount head user)))
(transmitter-unit
(lambda (neurotransmitter-unit
neuro-digital-conversion-unit)
(claim-define (neutrotransmitter-unit
neural-impulses brain)
(transmit neural-impulses brain user))
(claim-define (neuro-digital-conversion-unit
neural-impulses digital-signals)
(convert (neural-impulses
digital-signals))))
(receiver-unit
(lambda (neuroreceptor-unit
digital-neuro-conversion-unit)
(claim-define (neuroreceptor-unit neural-impulses
brain)
(receive neural-impulses brain))
(claim-define (digital-neuro-conversion-unit)
(convert digital-signals
neural-impulses))))
(power-source-unit
(lambda (thermal-radiation brain-cells electricity)
(power-convert thermal-radiation electricity
brain-cells)))))
(claim-wherein
(transmitter-unit
(lambda (digital-signals neural-impulses)
(transmit digital-signals neural-impulses)))
(receiver-unit
(lambda (neural-impulses digital-signals)
(transmit neural-impulses digital-signals)))))

This pattern of thinking can greatly simplify verifying equivalence
between an English translation of a claim having a complex structure
and the original Japanese claim.

>Have you considered the inverse mapping? Then you can convert your Scheme
>programs into patent claims. I'd better patent that!

>(lambda ...) => A method

>etc.

Unfortunately, computer programs cannot be patented in Europe;
therefore, it would be relatively easy for a competitor simply to
market a competing product using identical technology in Europe, thus
significantly defeating the purpose of the patent.

-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^

投稿者に返信転送