Then it should have been written in Japanese of Korean. I would not have bothered to look at it. There would be no snide remarks about poor grammar. Just because someone does cannot write well in English does not mean that responders are obligated to spend much time trying to understand what was meant.
Or whatever it is that they speak in Odessa, Texas (see the URL posted elsewhere in this thread).
I've often wondered about some of the obfuscations used in patents. Are they used:
1) because of some obscure legal requirements
2) because the applicant doesn't know any better, or assumes that the patent clerks don't
3) to reduce the probability of a text search returning similar terms in previous work and as a result, make the application look like its prior art?
Where I live the majority of people speak English as a second language, and it is *obvious* that the point of any conversation is to communicate... which *requires* an effort be made at understanding what a speaker is trying to say. That is regardless of the speaker's ability to say it according to whatever set of rules you would like.
Strangely enough though, in this case it did *not* turn out to be an instruction book written by a non-native speaker of English, which is what I was assuming. Instead it is part of a patent application, which is *not* English as you are taught in school. It is a mixture of legalese, techno babble, and academic muttering.
Regardless, to me the meaning was very specific, and quite clear, so I just didn't see any problem at all with the grammar.
How about one that will no doubt boggle the minds of many: The entire idea is to be pedantically unspecific. That is, to cover as much as is possible with as few words as is possible, in a way that allows it to be broadly interpretted at a later date to mean something that the writer never imagined, but would have if asked at the time.
In other words: it privides fodder for patent infringment law suits.