The incorrect grammar "comprised of" would be an ambiguity, and as such, interpreted in the strictest way -- limiting as in Patent B.
You're dead wrong: http://patentlyo.com/patent/20...
Also, since shark fins on a vehicle would be purely decorative and nonfunctional, their presence or absence would be irrelevant in either construction.
It may seem worrisome that scientists and engineers of all people -- some of the absolute worst butchers of language and grammar 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 I've met. You need to be well-rounded to do the job.
Perhaps you're underestimating technical people. For example, I will very rarely, if ever, include a period in quotation marks, unless that period is part of the text I'm quoting. I will write things like
Type "cp -a /etc backup".
That example right there should tell you why I do it: if I include the period, it's ambiguous. Moreover, if I do need to quote a period at the end of a sentence, I will sometimes do this:
Because if I didn't include the period, it would be ambiguous. I know so-called "standard English" doesn't like that. However, for all I care, anyone who would like to criticize my using quotation marks in this manner can go fuck himself in the ass with a retractable baton. I'm going to use language to communicate precise ideas, and I will rewrite any rules that inhibit doing so. Mangling quotations by including unrelated punctuation is stupid and idiotic and wrong, and I won't do it.
It may seem worrisome that scientists and engineers of all people -- some of the absolute worst butchers of language and grammar 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 I've met. You need to be well-rounded to do the job.
Why would you think this? Scientists and engineers communicate precise ideas with each other routinely as part of their employment. Sloppy thinking and sloppy communication is tolerated less in those disciplines than any others, probably including even law.
My experience has been that technical people communicate clearly and efficiently about most topics and are less prone to falling for the cheap debating trick linguistic slights-of-hand that fool others. I assure you that if a competent technical person is talking to you in a way you find "incorrect", it is intentional. Perhaps you should be more tolerant.
Finally, to close: I have nothing against patent attorneys as individuals, though I'm glad software patents are dying. I'm also sure there are many competent patent attorneys out there. However, it's poor taste to diss one profession ("some of the absolute worst butchers of language and grammar") and then praise your own ("you need to be well-rounded to do the job"). It comes across as arrogant and condescending.
HAND.
