IP vs Patent Attorney?

Not an infrequent question, namely what is the difference between an intellectual property (IP) attorney and a patent attorney?

Answer is simply that patents are intellectual property (in fact the king of intellectual property) and so a patent attorney is an intellectual property attorney, but not all intellectual property attorneys are patent attorneys.

More - the phrase intellectual property only came into use sometime in the 1980s. The various professional associations then were titled patent associations, although some members practiced only trademark or copyright or trade secret law. I think they started up for patent attorneys and later admitted attorneys in the other areas, but I could be wrong here.

Any attorney licensed to practice law in any state can practice in these other IP areas. Not so with patents.

Practicing before the USPTO in patent matters requires a registration, and eligibility to even attempt being registered requires at least a significant undergrad background in the physical sciences. Yes, us patent attorneys are also engineers, or chemists, or physicists etc.

So many attorneys say they are IP attorneys who will never get close to a patent application because they are not eligible for registration as a patent attorney.

Have I straightened out this issue? (I am a chemist with math/physics minors.)