Is the language used in patents archaic or intentionally obtuse? [closed]

Example:

[f] moving said second cart to said proximate end of said scanning device so that said trays in said second cart be passed through said scanning device at said proximate end.

Is the language used in patents archaic or simply intentionally obtuse?

Patent lawyer here. I wouldn't call the language you cited either "archaic" or "intentionally obtuse." "Pedantic" or "hyperliteral" may be better adjectives.

The language you cited came from Claim 1 of US Pat. No. 6888460

Language in the claims section of the patent are considered the "metes and bounds" of the intellectual property right. That is, the claim language describes the precise extent of the patent owner's monopoly. It is necessary for the language to be as accurate as possible in order to alert everyone to the scope of the patentee's property right. Because human language is so imprecise, it is very difficult to write text that comes even close to the level of clarity one would want in such a description.

Some of the terms used are also jargon. Because patents are interpreted by courts, there is an entire history of court decisions determining the meaning of specific words. For example, the word "comprising" means "including the listed things but also potentially including other things as well" whereas "consisting of" means "including only the listed things."

In the language you cited, the word "said" in the phrase "said proximate end" makes it unambiguous that the reference is to the same "proximate end" as previously recited ("wherein said scanning device comprises a proximate end and a distal end"). One might also use the word "the" rather than "said," in this circumstance, but that's a matter of style.

In my opinion, the phrase you quoted is neither archaic nor obtuse. Typical of legal phrases, it is somewhat repetitive and stilted in the service of expressing a precise meaning.

"Said" in the phrase you quoted means "the particular one to which I last referred." The meaning is limited to that particular one, not another one, and not more than one. Despite the awkward sound of it, "said" is an economical expression that uses one word instead of several words.

You may be interested to learn the term "a term of art". It means a common word or phrase that is used to express an idea that is defined by a body of specialized knowledge. Every specialized field has its own vocabulary; many have terms of art.

Patent law is a recognized legal specialty. Patent law practitioners often have education in engineering or hard science, in addition to the law.

Descriptions in patent applications must be precise in order to demonstrate that the invention is novel and that it is not an obvious development of existing technology. That is why your quoted phrase repeatedly uses the term of art "said".

ETA: I am also a lawyer. I don't practice patent law, but I do practice in another specialty area.