Glossary entry (derived from question below)
French term or phrase:
contrairement
English translation:
contrary to
French term
Tunisia
contrairement
La revendication indépendante 1 n'est pas présentée en deux parties, contrairement aux dispositions de la règle 43(1) CBE, alors que....
Independent claim 1 is not presented in two parts notwithstanding provisions of rule 43(1) EPC, whereas such a presentation
would notwithstanding do here?
Thank you
| 3 +6 | contrary to |
Tony M
|
| 3 +3 | as stipulated in |
kashew
|
| 5 -1 | on the other hand |
Alison Billington
|
| 5 -1 | on the other hand |
Alison Billington
|
| Règle 43(1) CBE |
cc in nyc
|
| Typical EPO examples |
Alison MacG
|
Jul 11, 2012 09:21: writeaway changed "Field" from "Law/Patents" to "Other" , "Field (specific)" from "Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright" to "General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters" , "Field (write-in)" from "lettre officielle d\'une d" to "in a legal text"
Jul 11, 2012 10:44: Nikki Scott-Despaigne changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"
Non-PRO (3): B D Finch, Rob Grayson, Nikki Scott-Despaigne
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
contrary to
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 30 mins (2012-07-11 08:56:43 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
One could hardly say that 'notwithstanding' would be wrong — but it is not really necessary here, is not terribly common in EN, and in my view adds a slight nuance of meaning. Consider this sentence:
"He persisted in these risky investments, notwithstanding the fact he had received a direct order from his superior to stop."
"He persisted in these risky investments, contrary to the direct order he had received from his superior to stop."
In some sense (but not here, I think), 'contrairement' can have a sense of 'unlike': "Contrairement à moi, il est très impulsif" — here it is clear that 'notwithstanding' would not be appropriate.
| Thank you, I was putting "contray to" then found "withstanding" on the epo website, in what seemed to me to be the same context :), thank you for your quick reply |
| agree |
mimi 254
15 mins
|
|
Merci, Mimi !
|
|
| agree |
Bertrand Leduc
1 hr
|
|
Merci, Bertrand !
|
|
| agree |
kashew
1 hr
|
|
Thanks, J!
|
|
| agree |
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
: "Notwithstanding" does indeed function as a synonym of "in spite of (the fact that)". "Contrairement" often usefully translates as "contrary to", or in familiar contexts, "as against" or even "compared to", the latter for "contrairement à moi".
1 hr
|
|
Thanks, Nikki!
|
|
| agree |
Simon Charass
14 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Simon!
|
|
| agree |
Alison MacG
: I see no reason to change the formulation. This keeps the emphasis the same, i.e. on the negative - Independent claim 1 is NOT (written/drafted) in two parts and therefore does NOT meet the requirements of Rule 43(1).
1 day 1 hr
|
|
Thanks a lot, Alison! That's exactly the way I see it too... but you explained it better ;-)
|
as stipulated in
i.e. as required under/ stipulated in rule/clause 43(1) CBE
| agree |
B D Finch
: That would, indeed, be the best way of translating the passage. However, would it fit the rest of the translation produced, given the evidence of the Asker's proposed translation?
12 mins
|
|
Thanks
|
|
| neutral |
writeaway
: why not rephrase it? because changing the meaning/import isn't really a great idea
43 mins
|
|
I wasn't trying to change the meaning, but to be more explicit.
|
|
| agree |
Kévin Bernier
45 mins
|
|
Thanks
|
|
| neutral |
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
: A neutral verging on a disagree. This suggestion risks a significant change in meaning. The idea is that Claim 1 is in not in 2 parts but that the provisions of Rule X are. I fail to see how "as stipulated under" can be used.//Edit + see discussion sect.
1 hr
|
|
Hi! I agree, it must be formulated with care. Are you quite sure of your interpretation? I see a negative - n'est pas présentée en deux parties..
::// It was just an idea - of course, Tony's "contrary to" is the standard trad - with which I agreed yesterd
|
|
| agree |
cc in nyc
: dico def: http://www.larousse.com/en/dictionaries/french-english/contr...
3 hrs
|
|
Thanks
|
|
| agree |
Wolf Draeger
: Both answers are OK, but this one is less aggressive; cc's ref clears up any incoherence between the two parts of the sentence.
4 hrs
|
|
Thanks
|
|
| disagree |
Tony M
: I share the misgivings of others; this introduces a potential ambiguity which is not there in the original; it is very far from clear whether what was stipulated was the 'not in 2 parts' or 'in 2 parts'; the risk of misunderstanding is really too great.
13 hrs
|
| neutral |
Alison MacG
: I see no reason to change the formulation. This introduces ambiguity that will then have to be removed by making further changes: Independent claim 1 is not drafted in THE two-part form as stipulated in Rule (N.B. not clause) 43(1).
1 day 12 mins
|
United Kingdom
Translator of French to English
Native in: English (Variant: British)
Works in: French to English, English, French
on the other hand
| disagree |
Tony M
: Except that this is not the meaning as used in the present context; if you tried to insert this in the translation as it stands, it would not make sense.
1 day 24 mins
|
United Kingdom
Translator of French to English
Native in: English (Variant: British)
Works in: French to English, English, French
on the other hand
| disagree |
Tony M
: Except that this is not the meaning as used in the present context; if you tried to insert this in the translation as it stands, it would not make sense.
1 day 23 mins
|
Reference comments
Règle 43(1) CBE
Règle 43
Forme et contenu des revendications
(1) Les revendications doivent définir, en indiquant les caractéristiques techniques de l'invention, l'objet de la demande pour lequel la protection est recherchée. S'il y a lieu, les revendications doivent contenir :
a) un préambule mentionnant la désignation de l'objet de l'invention et les caractéristiques techniques qui sont nécessaires à la définition de l'objet revendiqué mais qui, combinées entre elles, font partie de l'état de la technique ;
b) une partie caractérisante introduite par l'expression "caractérisé en" ou "caractérisé par" et exposant les caractéristiques techniques pour lesquelles, en liaison avec les caractéristiques indiquées à la lettre a), la protection est recherchée.
United Kingdom
Patents and related material specialist
Native in: English (Variants: British, Scottish, UK) 
Works in: German to English, French to English, Swedish to English, and 4 more.
Typical EPO examples
During the oral proceedings the appellant objected that the independent claims had been cast in the one-part form, contrary to the provisions of Rule 43 EPC.
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t070...
Independent claim 1 is not in the two-part form in accordance with Rule 43(1) EPC
http://register.epoline.org/espacenet/application?showPdfPag...
With the appellant's current request, the earlier multiple independent claims have been replaced by a single independent claim drafted in the two-part form as required by Rule 43(1) EPC
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t110...
Discussion