CC BY
0Список литературы
1. Manual of lexicography / Ladislav Zgusta [et al.]. - Praha: Publishing House of Chechoslovak Academy of Sciences, 1971. - 360 p.
2. Roget, P.M. Roget's International Thesaurus / P.M. Roget. - 5th edition, edited by Robert L. Chapman. - New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992.
3. Англо-русский тематический словарь / English-Russian Thesaurus / Е.А. Мужжевлев, В.И. Рыдник. - М., Русский язык, 1994. - 470 с.
4. Баранов, О.С. Идеографический словарь русского языка / О.С. Баранов. - М.: Издательство «ЭТС», 1995. - 820 с.
5. Караулов, Ю.Н. Лингвистическое конструирование и тезаурус литературного языка / Ю.Н. Караулов. - М.: Наука, 1981. - 366 с.
6. Козлова, Т.В. Идеографический словарь русских фразеологизмов с названиями животных / Т.В. Козлова. - М.: Дело и сервис, 2001. - 208 с.
7. Морковкин, В.В. Идеографические словари / В.В. Морковкин. - М.: Издательство Московского университета, 1970. — 71 с.
8. Оксфорд-Дуден. Картинный словарь современного английского языка / The Oxford-Duden. - М., Издательство «Жусуп Баласагын», 1995. - 672 с.
9. Саяхова, Л.Г. Тематический словарь русского языка / Л.Г. Саяхова, Д.М. Хасанова, В.В. Морковкин. - М.: Рус. яз., 2000. - 556 с.
10. Скворцов, Д.В. Русский язык. Тематический словарь (для говорящих по-английски). С транскрипцией русских слов. С английским и русскими указателями / Д.В. Скворцов, под. ред. Дж. Ллойда. - М.: Живой язык, 2012. - 256 с.
structural features in english patents and their realization in ukrainian
translation
Mykhailichenko V.R.
bachelor, Zaporozhye National Technical University
ABSTRACT
This article deals with the most outstanding problem of the modern linguistic identifying the particularity of structural foundation of American and European patents connected with different legal systems and "national peculiarities" of the languages. Much attention is given to the realization of these features in Ukrainian translation. Two types of claims existing in patent practice are described in details: American and German one, which define scope of the invention and limits of the assignee rights.
Keywords: bibliographic description, patent claims, patent literature, structural features, patent texts structure
Problem statement. The priority task of any current entrepreneurship is creating and developing new technical decisions to produce rival products that allow realizing their profit and coming into foreign markets. Since such decisions made at the crossroads of many disciplines raise the prior art to a higher level, they need effective protection, e.g. patenting. Therefore, accomplishment of structural peculiarities in translation is a very important task, for the reason that patents translation is used not only to inform, but to record intellectual property subject matter in patenting country as well. It is becoming a modern condition of integration and globalization; effect of patents starts to go beyond one country.
The relevance of the topic depends on wide range of patent translations application areas beginning with the solving scientific and technical problems in the functioning of any company and ending with the definition of patent clearance or recording a patent for invention abroad.
Publication review. Famous natives E. Derdi, O. Hryhorenko, O. Pahurets, A. Savelenko, S. Tsariova, G. Usyk, I. Voloschuk, foreign scientists G. Aharonian, N. Hartmann, D. Hunt, B. Klimzo and many others dedicated their works (articles, monographs, etc.) to researches of different patent peculiarities. However, sci-entistists have begun to pay attention to realization of structural features of the patents only recently.
Objective of the article is to define structural features of European and American patents and peculiarities of their realization in Ukrainian translation.
The material of the work is the European and American patent with common name "A brain-computer interface test battery for the physiological assessment of nervous system health".
It is well known that patent has its own clear structure, consisting of certain subsections followed in sequence. The structure of the patent may be different depending on the country. Among the reasons of such differences B. Klimzo names patenting practices adopted in a certain country, examination or registration systems of granting patents, as well as regulations of invention description (German or American one) [1, p. 177].
N. Hartmann gives a detailed structure of a patent application, which should consist of: 1) cover page (provides all reference numbers, dates, names of patentees and inventors, and other administrative information); 2) Specification: 2.1 the background of the invention; 2.2 summary of the invention; 2.3 the advantages of the invention; 2.4 the summary of the drawings; 2.5 preferred embodiment; 3) Claims; 4) Abstract; 5) List of Reference Characters [3, p 12 - 14]. Every section of a patent has its own language style because these sections have different tasks, functions and therefore they have different legal force.
The structure of a patent application proposed by N. Hartmann is recommended one. Though, some sections in a certain case may be removed or merged. Thus, analysed European and American variants of patent applications consist of 10 parts: bibliographical description, invention title, abstract, related applications, background of the invention, brief summary of the invention, brief description of the drawings, examples, claims and figures. In any patent, these sections have no clear sequence: for example in a European patent drawings go last, and in an American patent application, they go after abstract. Of cause there is much common in the structure, nevertheless patent legislation demands depending on country bring some differences.
The cover page of any patent application has a significant value to find special information there and make preliminary examination of invention. To make this examination one can use bibliographic description, which consists of numbers in round brackets according to ST 9 standard. For example, (12) plain language designation of the kind of document, (43) Date of making available to the public by printing or similar process of an unexamined patent document, on which no grant has taken place on or before the said date, Number(s) assigned to priority application(s) etc. [6]. The way how description is presented also differs. Thus, in a Patent application of European Union bibliographic description is divided into three main parts, at the same time in the US variant description is divided into two parts. Data of bibliographic description in European patent take more place than in American one. Every patent in America and in European Union has its own number (11), and date of making it available to the public by printing (43), so these features are common for both patents in English. Ukrainian patent also has its own number, given by patent authority. Thus, numbers in English patents as well as in Ukrainian one are different. In a Ukrainian variant, we could leave the number according with ST 9 standards (11) and free space for writing the number given by Patent Office. With the number 19 in patent application one can find the title of Patent Office, however in European application unlike American one logotype of the Office is also presented. There is a number (9) in Ukrainian patent next to which UA was written. Moreover, Ukrainian official form has also Ukrainian coat of arms after which goes: Державний департамент ттелектуально'1 власностг. The Date of making available to the public (43) has no realization in Ukrainian bibliographic description, as this feature is not distinctive one for Ukrainian patents. Plain language designation of the kind of document (12) is also represented in American and European applications, nevertheless their locations are different, in US application it is situated at the left side, at the same time in European one it is located in the center. In Ukrainian patent application this paragraph is also presented and translated as follows: (12) ОПИС ДО ПАТЕНТУ НА
The scientific heritage No 10 (10),2017 BHHAXIfl. Unlike to English patents in Ukrainian one it is necessary to indicate paragraph (13) Kind-of-doc-ument code. As it is unknown a translator could leave some space after number (13). The first part of European document unlike to American one also consists of Number assigned to the application (21); Date of filing the application (22); International Patent Classification (IPC) (51). It should be mentioned that data of application according to IPC is also presented, however in the second part of the bibliographic description. These paragraphs in Ukrainian patent application are also presented in the second part. The number (51) is located after kind-of-document code and is realized in translation as follows: (51) MnK (the edition year of this classification) and the number located under it. Such specific for every patent and patenting country parts of bibliographic description as Number assigned to the application (21); Date of filing the application (22) are also given by Patent Office. That is why in translation they would not be realized so a translator could write the number (21) and leave some space.
Designated Contracting States under regional patent conventions (84) are mentioned in the second part of EU bibliographic description. This part of bibliographic description is not given in Ukrainian application, because it is more specific for European one. The first line of the second part of American bibliographic description is a title of invention situated at the left side using all-capital letters (54); the title of the invention in the EU patent goes after all bibliographic descriptions. In Ukrainian application the title of the invention is usually written before bibliographic description and separated by two lines and goes with the number (54), if the patent has no main drawing. However, if the patent has it the title of the invention goes after bibliographic description. This feature should be considered while translating. Names of inventors (76), Number assigned to the application (21), Date of filing the application (22) go after the title of the invention in American application. Names of inventors go after the number (72) in a Ukrainian patent. All names should be transcoded. The paragraph "Related U.S. Application Data" that gives references to related domestic patent documents and unpublished applications (62) are indicated separately. At the same time priority data (30) are also noted in European patent application, besides number and, if possible, filing date, of the earlier application from which the present document has been divided up (62). It should be noted that patent classification is presented separately and not only according to the International Patent Classification (51), but also according to domestic or national classification (52) in contrast to European patent application. Name(s) of applicant(s) (71) is/are the last point of the second part of the European application. All parts of bibliographic description mentioned above should be omitted in the translation aimed at official filing.
UiKCïEPClOOOCDnM I hay KM VKPAJHW
AEPXABHttH QEflAPTAUEHT iHrEflEÜTVAflthOi DJ1ACHOCTI
ykpa<ha (13)ua <„>
(51) MI1K (2006 01) A61B S/Q476
onuc
flO nATEHTY HA BHHAXIfl
liai
(S<| CXPXÎÎ TECTTO XW *ï3IO,ÏÏOnHOÏ OÏHHKHÎJOPOB'Ît KEP0OBOÏ CHCIZMH3A JOIIOMOrOiO HEHPOKOinriOIEPHOrO EHTEF^EHCy,
(21) (22) Qi)
m
(72) r;;:it.i.;:,iKi::;'
* Clhoh ^tteii
Îpxii, nns7 niHcmiiiàa 19057-2766 (CIIIA) « Bwan
raran HKW It«pci (CIIIA) (7^) nj:!iacTiiic:i" âpo^ii J^eïî Tùjoii (75) Cbstöhi il y 5anraiy ïuaaKSii
CfcTXCuOTwa S 4epM TïmSS ï Srawfc CÜHSSpmS rancTKEura: CI^QCÏÎ -Tj'L tmiRûâ
iKiiajiiflus lioaKL, e^imiiflii ipiEim.
XECJKiÔlI jÔû Û EDUCLHOEIHim ELISEE Hi '1. „ ' )
BipiiffTi: s-EÎ:eHiTtH.i EIEÜKOJ}' mgiD eiitTCMiia u»ro3iaxi irarijy ieinnisî
iHjBtiaj^-u.iioro BiissietjrträOTO etasj* MOSty, lana^M EKtcpncTiHKT fc"«apoeinDHÎ>nïîrp;i4>iï (££T), HiäpcntiHp-sniusi
U'ioo 3;flrn:niEïKi cuL\i;;-iuut HOEV MpKij r;:: huii TJ ix i:.n a^um K.I FÎ.'Î .IIIT::
^¿Ei^ainia tf.vi jöüttti ciitïÉiai ïa ü^Töaji pairaorc EKJMSwtî ciaoDyucTBa, HGao"aHn2 ::i:cp.iov A,-anreib:cpa ' .■:" mizîk^micra Hj'iauirt-T (YAD)5 .tyrërrjua ~r.ï■ ^v* T (^AD 7? VAD), asm Eorriinnm EopyjnäKHS la iatoi e?:ipo-s laxsx ctüi itaïKV rpu iÉpenHO-ïiaaasiii ipitiii, uanputm npa
.israH iipirao-ira:ijiîEÛ[ tjjzemî BiF™™™
iztö^nemu sinuxszy nipezoa^eiro sitxà i« sei il uam acK ^CJIMM, napiEHSHO iî stuiuMüHii
CBCTäMiMB T3- MäKJSBOt, amTOK (1) T-T^ÛESÎTÎ. Cr -ElçillîfiT: TS TOTiSCCTi
peïyjmaiy; (2) EUSE^^OU xrepsaa ÏÏ TpiEim m
paKHLLiy B73UL" 12 (3) ïï.v-jjT_j-4TtT nepemcjDiccrc i
UKicDiiKTto jncriHziiÎBOTO loopy JIHKIC:. Zjjcrii r.xh".v.j&sEö.iae orurrr;1 gannHiiû cran v<"-'.;/y Poîtfinïi wsïiun «ttmm itepöjiEQiiscsanere. sicuei^iraoro cîihv uwry.
Fig. 1 Sample of translation of the cover page according to the rules of execution and filing in of application for invention and utility model applications in Ukraine without main drawing.
In the third part of European patent one can also find name(s) of inventor(s) if they are known (72), name(s) of attorney(s) or agent(s) (74) and remarks, these paragraphs realized in Ukrainian translation without structural changes and the names are transcoded.
As can be seen, the cover page contains the most important bibliographic data with ST-9 codes, this allows us to understand description of the invention in different countries, even without knowledge of the foreign language and peculiarities of foreign patent law. The translation of bibliographic description into Ukrainian presents no difficulties. A translator must be careful in this case. Depending on the purpose of translation, the structure of the patent description in translation can be not saved - if the patent is merely informative, or aimed at being patented in Ukraine (the latter should be made according to the rules of execution and filing of application for invention and utility model applications), or the structure can be saved - if it was agreed with the customer. In the Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 one could see sample of translation according to the rules of execution and filing in of application for invention and utility model applications in Ukraine.
The title of the invention also deserves special attention. It imposes certain requirements, the main of which are brevity and precision. Previously, the volume of the patent title was preferably from two to seven words [8, p. 7911], however nowadays the length of the patent title is measured in characters, so the title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length [7, p. 62]. Among other requirements to patents written in English, B. Klimzo calls firstly that if a unit of the device has essential novelty then just this unit of the invention should be mentioned in the title of the invention, not the device in general. Secondly, the title of the invention should not have new features of the invention. Thirdly, the title of the invention may be the same as the beginning of the claims. Fourthly, the title of the invention should not comprise notations, advertising epithets as well as unnecessary words [1, p. 183]. The title of the invention is translated in the final stage, because all peculiarities of patent application could be taken into account. Moreover, this allows making the correct catalogues using the descriptions of the invention.
УКРА'(НА
ДЕРХЛЕША СЛУЖБА IHT£ilt*T¥AilbHOI
аллснос™
ÏKPAJHM
(is) U A (it)
(51> МПК (2006.01) A6IB 5ЛМ76
(13>
(«> ОГШС ДО ПАТЕНТУ НА ВИНДХЩ
{21) Homîpi (ÏÎ) Ддпдгнщчпдмвчи
1И1
Î4SJ ьдмюст^
проеч^^мупдаенг^
(73 ) 13иналДнн"<н j
* С ¡мои Адам Джен Ярдп, штат Пеясшьвашя 1SW67-2Ш (США)
Верна Аджай Деклль. шган Нью Джгрс1 (С1НА|
(74) Пристаешь,:
Брофн ДевцTiuoTi, ресстр.Vs
1HI СЕР1Я TECTIB ДЛЯ ФПГОЛОПНО! ОЩНКИ ЗДОРОВ'Я HEPBOBOÏ СИСТЕМ!! ЗА ДОПОМОГОЮ НЕ ЙРОКОМП'ЮТЕРНОГО ТНТЕРФЕЙСУ
(57) Реферат:
Сисгемита мет од и у даному в и на ко д1 складакутъся з сер ¡Ï-рьэк i бмьше сенсор них ксгнтпвник задних задач. я-d статично в5о динвм'чно перев'ряю_ь мозоц оцшючс трав ми. хвоээби aSoïx комб1нованнй еп.пиб на мозок. EapiaiiM здм мнения винаходу можуть забезпечити системн та мет од и д/я анал!зу i оцики ¡иди Bi дуального бюметричного стану мозку. шляхом використаьня електраенцифалографи [ЕЕГ], сомато-сенсорноТ, нейропсихолопчно! та/а60 когн1тнвноТ стпмуляцп, нову обробку ситал!в та ix виведення на ечран. Вартнти зд'йснення вльаходу надакль сисгени та методи для раннього виявлення слабоумстза, в-лючв-очл хвэробу Альцгеймера (АО), мульти1нфврктна деглгния (VAD), злйшана дененц1я (ADtb VAD), лет когнгтиен псрушення та и Lui нейродегеьератмвт розлади. а та кож стан мсзку гри череп но-мозко Ei й травам, напр л клад при легки черегно-мозковш TpaBMi. Вартнтами зд1Рсненнл зинаходу передбачгно д±яш або Bei ¡3 наступних доробоч. гор'вняно ¡э звичайнимим системами та методами, вклк;чаючи: ¡1) ГПдвгщення чутливол., специфпносп та точной результату; ( 2 > Виявлення хвор оби та травми на ра-1нь.му етага; та ;3j Понрвшення repeHOCHMOcri з г.'.ожли востю дсстанцшно-с збэру дан них. Даней в v на xi р дэзвсляе одшити зв_альний <ган мозну. =озкрит1 г.'.етоди оцтки персонэлЬоЕвного бюметричного стану моэку.
24
51. С.'TUM CDOLOtO .»> ОЧ> UJ.|:«I I flj ö4i Г-1 ть pirn
г. С;
сегслртля ьуш
i> C.1V1»« [ттпнтть
Л1ЛШГ'
«
(UlIM) J лх uLnpf ар
i) Ханлп.
5 kmiinitii lun
иШЕз LOIHlllUhz И
* ЛсрОЗОЛЬКа ЩЮl«Uini C&iu i-jujniiif
РИС. 1
Fig. 2 Sample of the translation of the cover page according to the rules of execution and filing in of application for invention and utility model applications in Ukraine with main drawing.
In the translation as well as in the original, the title of the invention should be short that is why unnecessary words should also be removed from the translation. To make this, the words of the title are removed in turn and if the requirements to the title are not violated, then this word is removed. As it was mentioned above the title of the invention should not have a novelty then while translating from English into Ukrainian, a translator removes such English words as enhanced, improved,
new. The title of the invention should be translated with a nominative expression, moreover the nouns should be in singular, excluding generally accepted ones also cases when the plural form is necessary to characterize the nature of the invention. For example A brain-computer interface test battery for the physiological assessment of nervous system health is translated as Серш mecmie для оцiнки нервовоЧ системи за допомогою
нейрокомп 'ютерного iнтерфейсу because the battery consists of at least two tests. It is necessary to avoid using abbreviations, proper names and repetitions in a translation. It is also not customary to use tautological expressions, the same goes for prepositions and conjunctions.
In addition to the bibliographic description and the title of the invention, patent application consists of abstract with the main figure. The abstract of the invention is necessary to understand the essence of the invention: its advantages and how this invention works. The abstract should be concise, one-paragraph summary structure, nature, and the purpose of the invention [2, p. 180]. The name of this paragraph is indicated only in American patent application. The length of the abstract is different, thus the American variant of the paragraph has smaller volume, at the same time the European abstract is larger. This happens because of using general phrases such as the systems and methods of the present invention; and Embodiments of the invention can provide systems and methods. In both abstracts the main figure that introduces the nature of the invention is also presented. Ukrainian Patent increasingly more often coincides with the claims, but it is unacceptable when an abstract provides a generalized form to submit essential features of the invention. When translating papers one should also omit tautological expressions mentioned above.
Figures go after the abstract in the American application, at the same time figures go after all the information in the Europian patent. All figures (illustrations, graphics, drawings, diagrams, tables) should be made according to the original document. That is why a translator should make a full copy of graphics, schemes to change only notes on target translation. It is better to translate drawings in parallel with description of the invention. As it is a reference to the figure one should look on it, because it allows understanding and precising detail description. Moreover in detail description one could find full form of abbreviations located on drawings. Translator should have skills to read drawings, or circuit arrangements because it increases translation quality. The sequence of digital designations of invention details that are often can be found in the figure should be preserved in the translation. It is impossible to miss the digital designation. Expression indicating that figures shows the examples of invention embodiment follows above list of drawings. The example of such phrase is Embodiments of the invention can be better understood with reference to the following drawings - Втшення винаходу можна краще зрозумти на прикладах наступних рисунюв.
Further point concerning to related application if there are any follows in European and American patent. A type of application, a related application with indication of number preliminary application, and date of filing are also indicated in the paragraph concerning related art. This point of the invention is realized without any structural changes.
The next point of the European patent is paragraphs with general name background of the invention the first paragraph of which is called technical field. In
the US patent this point is located separately. The second paragraph of this background has a name description of related art, at the same time in the American patent this paragraph is located separately and has a title background. There are no any significant differences in the structure between these points in the European and American patent applications. A section is arbitrary, in general form, without using names of companies and typical markings. The main part of the Ukrainian Patent application is separated by paragraphs and given in a continuous text.
Brief summary of the invention may be presented in both patent applications. The European patent has more paragraphs in this section, thus one of them gives the information about what invention must be equipped with, and how this battery test can be done. In the American application this paragraph is eliminated.
Each patent has drawings. Figures are necessary to present an invention from all sides, explain the structure, and show all the components of the invention in the application. Among the main requirements to figures are the drawings and the written descriptions must be detailed and clear enough to enable a person skilled in the pertinent field to make and use one's invention; the drawings must show all the parts or elements mentioned in the specification, including the description of the invention (technical description) and claims (legal description) [5, p. 93]. Nevertheless, patent figures are relative as they do not have main data for drawings such as dimension, scale, specification on drawings or on samples, technological units, functional specifications, complete units etc.
The only feature that makes difference between brief description of drawings in European and American patents is that in the latter each drawing begins with a new line that has its own number, at the same time the European patent unites thesefigures with common number.
There are not any significant differences in the section describing examples. However, the number of the examples and their names are written in the same line in the European patent, while in the American application the name of the example is written in another line. It should be mentioned that laying the emphasis on a separate part of an application in Ukrainian structure is not a specific feature. This should be taken into account in translation aimed at official filing in Ukraine, however the original structure may be possible if its reproduction was agreed with a customer or if the translation is made for purely informational purposes.
The section "Claims" is the most important part of the application as a matter of law, because it defines the borders of legal protection of the inventions. So it is a basis of main conclusion concerning violation of granted patent rights in certain cases. The patent applicant must disclose the novelty or inventive step of an invention in the claims. The claims may be directed to only one embodiment, method, or article and might not recite subject features given in the specification. Typically, claims language is merely descriptive [4, p. 53].
Particular attention should be given to the structure of the claims. There are two systems to present
claims: German (European) and American one. European claims consist of two parts: limiting part of claims (in which all the known essential features of the invention needed to achieve results are listed) and a distinctive part (new subject of the patented invention). This two parts are divided by words characterized in that or wherein. Common European claims consist of one sentence, however there are multiclaim formulas, consisting of several paragraphs. The first paragraph is independent one (it is written in general words, the number of which is enough to define technical character of the invention), other paragraphs are clarifying and dependent on the first one. It should be mentioned that in the American patent application the section concerning claims is introduced with the phrase what is claimed, while in European patent it is called simply claims. The next claims are the example of German claims, consisting of 15 paragraphs. The first paragraph presents the general information and is called the limiting part of the claims: A method to monitor a brain and nervous system of a subject comprising: applying at least one EEG electrode to the scalp of the subject... One can see that this paragraph gives known components that help do the battery test that was patented as an invention.
The distinctive part of the invention begins in the second paragraph: The method of claim 1, wherein recording EEG signal data includes recording the alpha rhythm generated by the subject while in the resting eyes closed state, further comprising perturbing the subject with a stimulus and comparing the alpha rhythm in the resting eyes-closed state to the alpha rhythm generated by the subject during the perturbing to monitor the alpha rhythm of the brain and nervous system of the subject. One can see that a reader is sent to the first paragraph The method of claim 1, and then the distinctive part begins with the word wherein. The German claims are logical, that is why every paragraph flows from the previous one. All other paragraphs are dependent on the first one and begin as one mentioned above. This feature is common to German claims, however one feature is repeated several times. This feature belongs to the American claim. Another feature that is common to American claims can be found in 11 paragraph, in which new independent part is given: An apparatus for determining a biometric signature of a brain or nervous system of a subject comprising: at least one EEG sensor... Then dependent distinctive part of the claims is given; it sends the reader to 11 paragraph of the claims: The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first electronics system records EEG signal data by recording the alpha rhythm generated by the subject....
At the same time the American claims are smaller, each paragraph may have reference to only one previous paragraph. According to common American claims restrictive invention features mix and are introduced in succession that is why such claims are also called inventory claims. Nevertheless, as common claims are large and quite difficult to understand, then the main paragraph is also used in American claims: A method to monitor a brain and nervous system of a subject comprising: recording the audio voice of a subject and test
administrator conducting a cognitive challenge task... as well as several dependent paragraphs: The method of claim 1, wherein the cognitive challenge task is the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) task.
Ukrainian patent law also uses European structure of the claims. That may be multiclaim and monoclaim formulas. That is why reproducing European claims a translator can leave this part of the document without changes. Nevertheless American model (if a translation is made to be patented in Ukraine) should be made according to European standards. In this case, the task of the translator is not only to realize the original text, but also make an interlegal translation.
Consequently, the main peculiarity of any patent is the fact that application has a strict structure. Depending on the law of the country some parts of application can be removed or united. The majority of the countries has many common features in structure of patent applications. The main sections of patents are cover page, title of the invention, abstract, background of the invention, claims and figures. Transferring structure of the patent is the main task of a translator that should be considered together with lexical and grammatical peculiarities while translating.
References
1. Климзо Б.Н. Ремесло технического переводчика Об английском языке, переводе и переводчиках научно-технической литературы / Борис Николаевич Климзо - М.: Р. Валент, 2006. - 508 с.
2. Aharonian G. Patenting art & Entertainment new strategies for protecting creative ideas / G. Aharonian, R. Stim. - Berkeley: Nolo, 2004. - 347 p.
3. Hartmann N. An Introduction to Patent Translation / Nicholas Hartmann // ATA Patent Translator's Handbook / Nicholas Hartmann. - Alexandria: American Translators Association, 2008. - P. 11-18.
4. Hunt D. Patent Searching Tools & Techniques / D. Hunt, L. Nguyen, M. Rodgers. - New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007. - 188 p.
5. Lo J. How to make patent drawings: a patent it yourself companion / Jack Lo. - Berkeley: Nolo, 2007. - 250 p.
6. Manuel sur l'information et la documentation en matière de propriété industrielle [Електронний ресурс] // OMPI. - 2013. - Режим доступу до ресурсу:
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/fr/pd f/03-09-01.pdf (29.09.16). - Назва з екрану.
7. The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America - Washington D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005. - 758 p.
8. United States treaties and other international agreements [Електронний ресурс]: in 28 v. V. 28-Washington D.C. : Department of State, 1979. - 9090 p. - Режим доступу до ресурсу: https://books.google.com.ua/
books?id=vwusTmqT7O8C&printsec=frontcover&hl =ru&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onep-age&q&f=false. - Назва з екрану.
