I hope they are worded correctly.

A small incorrect use of grammar or terms of art can mean losing beaucoup de billions.

The classic example is this:

Patent A: "A vehicle comprising 3 wheels and a motor."

Patent B: "A vehicle consisting of 3 wheels and a motor."

Assume it is the year 1700, and no prior-art exists.

Patent A can go on to claim 4-wheeled motorized vehicles (since a 4-wheeled vehicle does after all indeed have 3 wheels), 3-wheeled vehicles with laser shark fins, whatever.

"Comprising" is open-ended, and interpreted as "it has at least this," or as one might say "including."

Patent B is strictly limited to 3 wheels and a motor, no more, no less. If a competitor uses 4 wheels, or adds shark fins, or two motors, then it is not covered by the patent.

"Consisting of" is a closed-ended phrase, interpreted as "having exactly this."

The incorrect grammar "comprised of" would be an ambiguity, and as such, interpreted in the strictest way -- limiting, as in Patent B.

It may seem worrisome that scientists and engineers of all people -- some of the absolute worst butchers of language out there -- are the ones who become patent agents or patent attorneys, but all-in-all, the ones who do so tend to be some of the smartest folks you'd ever meet (since you need to be well-rounded in order to do the job).

I leave it to Oogee our resident patent-master, to check the POET patents' language if he's so inclined.

GLAL,

R.