I caught myself writing like a patent lawyer today. It was a little unnerving.
In the instant example … blah blah … the preferred embodiment … blahty blah blah … a plurality of moieties … blah blah … the said R group … yawn … including, but not limited to …
It is surprising how easy it is to fall into the style of writing that characterizes patent applications. It is easy to poke fun at our lawyerly brethren for this. But the stylistic manner and the use of precise vocabulary with elaborate sentence construction is the result of generations of bitter experience in court. A long time ago, lawyers figured out that you have to say precisely what you mean to get what you want.
Judges and juries have to arrive at conclusions based on something, so if your fate rests on their interpretation of ambiguous language, you may be in for disappointment. Precise language is meant to prevent misunderstanding and place rewards and liabilities where they belong.
For chemists who are busy inventing things, it is useful to actually study the form and the language in a handful of patents. This will give a sense of how intellectual property is actually staked out and claimed. It is useful for the chemist to provide some guidance to the attorney in drafting claims and maximizing the value of the patent.
I deleted the “plurality of moieties” in the final draft. Just couldn’t do it.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
“A long time ago, lawyers figured out that you have to say precisely what you mean to get what you want.”
This is only half of the truth. When lawyers write, they have either one of two perspectives: 1) to get as much as possible, and 2) to give as little as possible. Sometimes an entire document is written from only one perspective, sometimes the perspective can change from sentence to sentence, and other times it can change over the course of a sentence. You see this in litigation as well: one side is seeking to expand the issue, the other is seeking to limit it.
In writing patent claims, you want to get as much as possible so being vague (but sounding precise) is desired – a truely valuble skill also practiced by politicians seeking to promise everything to everybody without being held accoutable for it.
Hi John, I have written a grand total of one patent (well, 90 % of it) so I am hardly accomplished in this style. But I do find it strangely comfortable.
Lawyers will say that a patent is only as good as the latest attempt to bring it down in court. As you say, each side in litigation will attempt to expand or contract aspects in self interest. It is a brutal business.
” A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
You will destroy your IP if your patent is not checked by a professional patent agent or attorney. Or are you following cases coming out of the CAFC on what the meaning of ‘is’ is?
Next best cheapest alternative is to copy verbatim spec and claim forms
recently produced by a reputable firm. No copyright applies to patents. No one will think less of you.
Actually, I work closely with a good attorney who likes to include the client in the process. I wouldn’t presume to send my scribblings on to the USPTO. And I have no interest in mastery of the nuances of the application process. This post was about my exploring the writing process.
That being said, I will caution people that attorneys shouldn’t be given scribblings on a napkin from which to write a patent. The inventor should be somewhat engaged in the process and the notion that it is hoplessly complex for a non-lawyer only serves to ramp the prosecution costs up.
It can be useful for an inventor to try to adopt the style of thinking that goes into drafting a patent application. It is a good exercise for an inventor who is game to try to draft an entire patent- description and claims. The attorney can always throw away the draft.
But the act of writing it can force the inventor to really think through the invention. That’s what it did for me. After I wrote draft of my own patent application, drawing heavily from existing language in other patents, I was in a better position to work with the attorney to capture the best form of the application. My writing was heavily edited.
I view the draft writing process as part of the collaboration between client and attorney, not as a substitute for an attorney.