IPC/R 3/99 - WIPO

n:\orgipc\shared\ipc\meetings\ref_1\task3\r3.doc

.

IPC/R 3/99ORIGINAL: English/françaisDATE: May 18, 1999/

18 mai 1999

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATIONORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA PROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE

GENEVA/GENÈVE

COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS OF THE IPC UNIONCOMITÉ D’EXPERTS DE L’UNION DE L’IPC

IPC REFORM PROJECT FILE/DOSSIER DE PROJET DE RÉFORME DE LA CIB

SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA ILLUSTRATING THE CONTENTS OF IPC ENTRIES:EXAMPLES OF PATENT DOCUMENTS, DETAILED NOTES AND CLASSIFICATIONDEFINITIONS, EXEMPLIFYING TECHNICAL TERMS

SUJET : INCORPORATION DE DONNÉES ÉLECTRONIQUES POUR ILLUSTRER LE CONTENU DESENTRÉES DE LA CIB : EXEMPLES DE DOCUMENTS DE BREVET, NOTES DÉTAILLÉES,DÉFINITIONS ET EMPLOI DE TERMES TECHNIQUES CONCRETS

ANNEX/ANNEXE CONTENT/CONTENU

SEE/VOIRR 3/99

ORIGIN/ORIGINE DATE

1 Comments Commentaires SE 01.04.99

2 Comments Commentaires US 14.04.99

3 Comments Commentaires IB 16.04.99

4 Comments Commentaires DE 03.05.99

5 Comments Commentaires GB 04.05.99

6 Rapporteur report Rapport du rapporteur US 10.05.99

IPC/R 3/99

ANNEX 1/ANNEXE 1

Swedish Patent andRegistration Office

Introduction of electronic dataillustrating the contents of IPC entries

Date: April 1st, 1999

COMMENTSon IPC/CE/28/5, Annex 5, Item 3

The Ad Hoc IPC Reform Working Group was given the task of considering theintroduction of electronic data illustrating the contents of IPC entries: examples ofpatent documents, detailed notes and classification definitions, where appropriate, moreexemplifying technical terms.

We support the introduction of additional electronic data into the IPC. However, it should beobserved that this will necessarily mean that the paper and electronic versions will becomedifferent. It is possible to include a lot of additional information in an electronic IPC, but thereis no way that the same information can be added to a paper version. In view of the technicaldevelopments, we see it as unavoidable and natural, but it will be a major change in policy.

It is difficult to discuss "electronic data" without having a picture of what a future electronicIPC will look like. We will presume that it will have one main layer, roughly corresponding tothe present paper version, which is linked to several additional layers giving furtherinformation. These additional layers will only be visible as hyperlinks in the main layer.

The different types of additional information will have different status. Some will be of thesame character as notes, that is rules that have to be followed. Some of the additionalinformation will be references to paragraphs of the Guide, which is also information of highdignity. Some will be definitions of technical terms. Other types will be mere user guidance,such as informative references and example documents. It will be necessary to keep thedifferent types of additional information separated and clearly identifiable. The user must beable to distinguish between important system information and mere user guidance. The IPCalready contains a huge volume of text, and it would probably be counterproductive to addmore text to the basic layer.

The linking of information to the basic text would give big advantages compared to thepresent paper version. Notes and paragraphs of the Guide could be presented in their context,and not somewhere else, far from the actual groups of the IPC, requiring the user to look inanother part of the book or in another book. We would also see it as an advantage if theinformative references could be removed from the text of the basic layer, leaving only theessential limiting references.

Document IPC/CE/28/5, Annex 5, Item 3, mentioned three different types of electronic data.We have the following comments regarding each of these types:

IPC/R 3/99Annex 1/Annexe 1

page 2

Example patent documents

This is in our opinion the least desirable type of additional data. Anyone working at apatent office already has quick access to example documents by entering a patentdatabase. To give any added value, the documents would have to be carefully selected.This would require a considerable amount of work. The example documents wouldbecome outdated and would need to be replaced. We are also concerned that actualdocuments would limit the interpretation of the scope of groups.

Detailed notes and classification definitions

We understand this as detailed, more explicit references and detailed definitions of thecoverage of technical terms and of the borderlines between different places.

The references are one of the big problems of the IPC. There are several reasons for this.One reason is that it is difficult for non-IPC experts to see the difference betweeninformative and limiting references. Another reason is that the references do not take theinventive concept into account. These are difficulties that could be avoided if moreelaborate texts were available.

The wording of the IPC itself is very condensed and does only seldom take the inventiveconcept into account. In order to properly reflect the intentions of the Guide, most titlesin the IPC should really be worded along the lines of "inventions characterised byfeatures relating to xxx" instead of just simply "xxx". Again, more elaborate texts wouldimprove the situation.

In places where everyday language or technical terms of the trade are used, there is oftena need to be more clear. The normal language is not as exact as we want theclassification to be. As a long-term goal it would be better to replace the inexactwordings used in the IPC itself by more exact functional wording, but additionaldefinitions will certainly help in many places.

Exemplifying technical terms

This relates to the opposite situation to the one mentioned in the last paragraph, whereto title in the IPC uses a functional language that might perhaps be difficult tounderstand for the man in the street or the technical expert. In general, we see this asthe desirable situation – to have an exact title in the IPC and additional examples, ratherthan having inexact titles that need additional definitions.


page 3

Conclusion: We strongly support the addition of an additional information layer to theelectronic version of the IPC. However, providing this additional information will require a lotof resources. Unless additional resources are committed from offices and from WIPO, it willonly be possible to introduce these additional data in very limited areas of the IPC.

Anders Bruun

[Annex 2 follows/L´annexe 2 suit]

IPC/R 3/99

ANNEX 2/ANNEXE 2

April 14, 1999

Mr. Mikhail MakarovHead, IPC Section,Classification and PatentInformation Division,World Intellectual Property Organization34, chemin des Colombettes1211 Geneva 20SWITZERLAND

Re: IPC Reform Working Group-Task 3 – Consider the introduction of electronic dataillustrating the contents of IPC entries

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Makarov:

Enclosed is the initial US response to Task 3 as set forth in Annex V of the Final Reportof the Twenty-Eighth Session Committee of Experts (IPC/CE/28/5) for your consideration.Copies of this document have also been circulated via e-mail to the IPC Reform Working GroupMembers.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Saifer, DirectorInternational Liaison Staff

Enclosurecc Reform WG Members


page 2

REFORM WORKING GROUP

US Paper on Task 3Consider the introduction of electronic data illustrating the contents of IPC entries

We are hesitant to begin the discussion of this topic by simply jumping into our opinion ofwhat we believe are useful additions to the information already found in the IPC. Prior to theWorking Group (WG) proceeding further on this topic, it is our conviction that general agreementis needed on what our goals are and what this data should be required to accomplish.

We envision the ‘new IPC’ classification schedules being simplified and enhanced withelectronic content information that:

1. Clarifies the ‘intended’ scope (i.e., specifies the conceptual boundaries of the category ofinvention covered) of each level of the classification to improve consistency of assignment.This both reduces the time for searching and ensures a reasonably complete search of the mostappropriate art.

2. Improves the ability of trained search examiners to locate and search the most appropriategroups for all the various search requirements of all the Intellectual Property Offices (IPOs).

3. Vastly increases the IPC’s usefulness to non-expert public searchers, which will expand thefuture economic benefits of patents and encourage the use of new technologies.

4. Simplifies the presentation of the current and additional content information by utilizingmultiple layered electronic access techniques.

These goals are all admirable and noble in nature, but they can not be successfullyaccomplished without one key factor. We firmly believe that the possibility of successfullyaccomplishing many of the above goals is completely dependent upon the successful completionof an IPC master classification file (i.e., IPC-MCF). Why is this essential? Because the IPCcannot be converted from its current representative scope, to its future definitive scope, withoutagreement by the WG on the population content of all of its classification symbols. Our views onthis subject are discussed in extensive detail in our task 6 paper in section 3 and can be referred tofor clarification if necessary.

It is our opinion that the WG must now definitely commit to the creation of an IPC-MCF.The WG must not establish plans for the introduction of electronic data into the IPC forillustrating the content of classifications without this commitment. This decision is fundamentalto determining what are the appropriate means for adding clarity to the IPC classifications.


page 3

We also believe that one concept that is central to the creation of definitions in the IPC hasnot been previously discussed by the IPOs. This concept is called ‘coextensive titles anddefinitions’. It requires that a classification’s title, its assigned obligatory patent documents, andthe definition of the classification all have the same scope. Although this concept is not currentlyspecifically required anywhere in the existing IPC, we believe that its incorporation into the newreformed IPC is essential to its future success. Because of its importance, we have attachedAnnex 1 with a more expansive explanation of the concept.

SUGGESTIONS FOR NEW IPC HAVING DEFINITIVE SCOPE

We recommend the creation of the following four types of electronic data that are usefulwhen the IPC-MCF is completed and the coextensive concept is added to the new IPC. These are:

A. the introduction of coextensive definitions for all subclasses and groups in the IPC,

B. the transfer of most ‘content information’ found in the section and class level to thedefinitions of the subclasses where it is most useful,

C. the transfer of all references and notes from their current location in the IPC schedules to thedefinitions where they are appropriate, and

D. the introduction of multi-language ‘catch term lists’ at the subclass or main group level forselected technologies.

A. COEXTENSIVE DEFINITIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION TITLES

The use of separate definitions for all specific classifications in the new reformed IPC should bethe WG’s ultimate goal. In our opinion, this is the only way to keep the subclass schedules ofmanageable length in a definitive system while still providing an essential level of guidance. Inmost situations, this would reduce the need for separate ‘term definitions’ in the IPC and theirfuture use would be greatly reduced. Because of this topic’s importance, we have attached Annex2 with a more expansive explanation of the concept and what we envision as a suitable standardfor IPC definitions.

However, we are also aware that definitions for all IPC classifications can not be createdovernight. In our opinion, the WG should make the creation of non-overlapping subclassdefinitions a top priority, since this will help prevent the dispersion of similar inventions intoseparate subclasses. We believe this task should be completed, to maximize its benefits, prior topopulating the reformed IPC. After the IPC-MCF’s initial population, our opinion is thatdefinitions should be written to at least the main group level during any significant revisionproject in a subclass. Separate definitions for these main groups would also help classifiersmaintain the intended scope of all hierarchically indented groups and clarify many of the possibleambiguities of their titles. Subgroup level definitions should also be encouraged and required


page 4

when the WG believes they are useful.

Most term definitions, and many of the existing ‘i.e.’ terms and expressions now included inclassification titles format (see paragraph 36 of Guide), should be deleted and incorporated intothe separate definitions for their classifications. Any term definitions that are still necessarycould be electronically stored separate from their subclass schedule’s text and displayed by mereclicking on the defined terminology in the text of the schedule using hypertext links. This typeaccess would provide a high level of redundancy that would ensure correct usage of the term orexpression specifically defined throughout its subclass. In our opinion, no term definitions wouldneed to be specified at the section or class level. Those that are appropriate for more than onesubclass should now be repeated at the subclass level for all appropriate subclasses.

B. TRANSFER OF SECTION AND CLASS CONTENT INFORMATION

In our opinion, it would be beneficial to searchers and classifiers to remove all information (e.g.,notes, definitions) currently found with the section, subsection, or class titles modifying theeffective scope of subclasses (paragraph 44 of Guide). This information should be included withthe definition for each appropriate subclass to avoid possible misinterpretations of the subclass’scope by users. While the location of this information was understandable when paper scheduleswere primarily used to reduce volume, it is not appropriate in a definitive system. In the newreformed IPC, the section, subsection, and class titles will not need to be defined, since they areonly intended to be broadly indicative of related subject matter and not definitive (paragraphs 15&16 of Guide).

C. LINE NOTES AND REFERENCES

Notes that are used to clarify the lines of distinction between their subclass or group and otherclassifications in the IPC (i.e., line notes) are essential in maintaining consistency of assignment.In addition references which show that the subject matter indicated by the reference is classified inother referred to classifications (i.e., line references) are also essential in maintainingconsistency of assignment. Both types of information should be removed from the IPC schedulesand stored separately to provided redundant access to all classifications having their scopemodified thereby (see paragraphs 44 &45 of the Guide). Furthermore, line references and linenotes in the reverse direction should be incorporated in the specified classification(s) to ensurethat all users are aware of the interrelationship between the classifications. The viewing of thistype information during a search could be accomplished by clicking on the classification’ssymbol in the schedule using hypertext links. In addition, whenever definitions exist for aclassification, we suggest that this type information be located adjacent to them in a systematicand uniform manner.


page 5

D. CREATION OF MULTIPLE LANGUAGE CATCH TERM LISTS

In our paper for the Advanced Seminar (i.e., IPC/SEM/98/5), US suggested in its Annex thecreation of a new IPC search tool. In that paper we referred to it as a ‘catch term list’. Wesuggested that examiners create a separate list of terms for each subclass that is useful for on-linefull text searching in one of the official languages. These official catch terms could then beinterpreted by each IPO using collected references. Each IPO would create parallel catch termlists and link them electronically to their official equivalent list to allow multi-language termsearching. The intended use of this tool is to avoid costly assignment of indexing codes toindividual patent documents whenever possible. While the primary purpose of this tool is foronline searching, we believe that it is also beneficial in illustrating the content of both its subclassand dependent groups. In fact, linking each of the catch term lists with the range of titles anddefinitions they cover would be an enormous help to searchers. Examiners will suggest the termsin each list and they will frequently be the currently used art terms for their technology. Theselists can act as an expansion of the “Official Catchword Index” in an electronic term search of thetitles and definitions. This will be a particularly useful benefit to non-expert public searcherswho are using translations of the IPC that do not include a Catchword Index.

In conclusion, it is this Working Group’s mission to make effective use of the worldwideelectronic environment envisioned for the reformed IPC. This will provide an opportunity for allusers to take full advantage of the full text search and electronic association capability SCIT willprovide for them. It is essential that we maximize the benefits that an electronic environment canprovide to assist in properly classifying in and searching the IPC classifications. The wordsfound within classification schedules, definitions, notes, and references associated with theclassifications and patent documents can now easily be searched electronically. Therefore, weshould provide users with electronic associations between schedule titles, definitions, line notes,line references and representative drawings and diagrams. Electronic links (e.g., hypertext links)can be provided between different information within the IPC, and to external classificationschemes, for example economic or industrial classification schemes and the “second level”schemes built by independent offices over the base or core level IPC.


page 6

ANNEX 1

THE CONCEPT OF COEXTENSIVE CLASSIFICATION TITLES AND DEFINITIONS

The title of any IPC subclass or group in which patent documents are classified asobligatory classifications must be written in such a manner as to be coextensive in scope withboth the obligatory patent documents classified therein and its definition along with note(s). Thistask is more difficult than it at first seems, since it is often necessary during a classificationproject to modify the wording of a title to reflect alterations in the scope of the obligatory patentdocuments proper for the subclass or group. This guideline must be followed unwaveringly toensure that all obligatory patent documents meet every limitation found in both theclassification’s (a) definition along with note(s) and (b) all superior, hierarchically related (i.e.,subclass and parent groups) definition with note(s) from which it depends.

However, the concept of coextension between a title and its definition, when its meaningis taken in the most literal sense, is contradictory in principle to the concept of having adefinition. It is the purpose of a definition to point out the exact boundaries of its subclass orgroup. This allows the title of a classification to maintain a reasonable length while the scope ofthe obligatory patent documents classified therein is controlled over extended periods of time bythe limitations in the definition. Consequently, the concept of coextension has been interpretedwhen applied to titles, to mean that the title of a subclass or group must be only indicative of allits essential limitations. The title of a classification need not necessarily represent, or explicitlyindicate, the exact boundary of all the limitations required by its definition or explanatory notesthereof. In addition, it is common for the title of a subclass not to specify that its scope includeseither unprovided for combinations, unprovided for components, or related subject matter notspecified as appropriate for another subclass. However, when this subject matter is found withinthe subclass, it must be clearly stated in the subclass’ definition and expressly provided for in adependent group when useful.

In situations where the scope of the claims are ambiguous, the original classification of suchpatent documents should be assigned based on the full disclosure and the Classifier's opinion ofwhat the inventor intended as the invention. Patent documents having ambiguous claim scopeshould not be used as the basis for creating subclasses or groups.


page 7

ANNEX 2

THE CONCEPT OF IPC DEFINITIONS

The definition of an IPC subclass or group is a supplemental explanation of its title. Itidentifies, in conjunction with its complementary notes and references, the scope of the subjectmatter necessary for obligatory classification of patent documents into the subclass or group. Thedefinition must set forth in a clear, concise, and precise manner the required properties, attributes,or characteristics possessed by patent documents included as obligatory type classifications in thesubclass or group. It is not unusual for some of the required properties, attributes, orcharacteristics specified in the definition of one subclass or group to be found in patentdocuments properly assigned as obligatory classifications in another subclass or group. However,it is necessary in these situations for at least one additional distinct requirement of the inventionto be specified in the definition and notes of each classification to maintain their uniqueness andprevent any overlap between the patent documents appropriately assigned to each.

As a supplemental explanation of the title, the definition clarifies what subject matter isunique to its classification. To achieve its intended purpose, a definition must explicitly interpretthe title by elaborating on the essential details thereof. The definition and its complementarynotes must also correct all probable misunderstanding on the intended scope and reconciledifferences with other classifications in the IPC. For these reasons, a definition of a subclass orgroup which, in effect, merely repeats its title, or the terms in its title which are relied on todistinguish its scope, is unacceptable in almost all situations. However, the degree of elaborationwhich is necessary to accomplish these goals, must be determined independently in each situationby a consensus of the opinions of the classifiers and examiners concerned with creating thesubdivision and may, in certain situations, allow the repetition of terms in both.

Finally, as a general guide, a classifier should never define any term used in a title in greaterdetail than is justified by the disclosure of all patent documents placed within the subclass orgroup as an obligatory type classification. The reason for this is obvious; a patent document mustin all situations clearly disclose what is used as the basis for any obligatory classification. Forexample, if most of the patent documents assigned to a group "Wood lathe" state only that "awood product is turned", then the definition should not go into details of the products that are notdisclosed. In this situation defining "wood" as "wooden pieces or blocks" would be acceptable.Defining it as "a hard fibrous substance which is basically xylem located beneath the bark of atree" would be more restrictive than the disclosures and not acceptable.


IPC/R 3/99

ANNEX 3/ANNEXE 3

n:\orgipc\shared\ipc\meetings\ref_1\task3\r3_an3.doc

COMMENTS ON TASK 3 ON THE PROGRAM OF THEAD HOC IPC REFORM WORKING GROUP

submitted by the International Bureau

Under Task 3 the introduction of electronic data illustrating the contents of IPC entriesshould be considered. This could be achieved by introducing hyperlinks in the IPC:CLASSCD-ROM and in the Internet version of the IPC in order to avoid overweighing of the text ofthe IPC entries. A flag next to the entry or a button at the top would permit the appearance ofwindows with the corresponding text. Below follows a non-exhaustive list of items that couldbe available.

EXAMPLES OF PATENT DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATING THE CONTENT OF AGROUP

This would concern newly introduced groups since documents for older groups could beeasily available through patent databases. Attention should be made in order to indicateunambiguous documents. A short comment could accompany the document, when necessary,for more clarity. It should be considered whether the whole document should be present orjust its patent number with a link to some digital library. The provision of such examples andtexts would be the task of the proposing office or of the rapporteur.

EXEMPLIFYING TECHNICAL TERMS

In the current practice a limited number(usually one or two) of exemplifyin g technicalterms are added to the text of an entry, if necessary, usually non-obvious ones. On the“hidden” layer a more exhaustive list of technical terms should be available including obviousones. These terms, although hidden, should be a part of the Classification for searchingpurposes. If the inclusion of such terms is considered to be necessary even in the existingentries this would necessitate a huge amount of work and offices, particularly the larger ones,should be aware of this effort before embarking on such a project.

HYPERLINKS TO THE NOTES

In the next edition of IPC:CLASS already hyperlinks to the relevant notes whichconcern an entry will be provided, even if these notes are not present close to the said entry.The Working Group should consider whether such a presentation is sufficient or if anotherone should be more appropriate.


page 2

HYPERLINKS TO THE GUIDE

Terms having a particular meaning explained in the Guide should have a particularcolor and be hyperlinked to the relevant place in the Guide. The same should be provided withthe places of the IPC where special rules apply indicated in the Guide.


IPC/R 3/99

ANNEX 4/ANNEXE 4

R3_an4.doc

DEUTSCHES PATENT- UND MARKENAMT IPC/REF/WG Task 3German Patent and Trademark Office Date : 3.05.1999

Consider the introduction of electronic data illustrating the contents of IPC entries: examples ofpatent documents, detailed notes and classification definitions, where appropriate, moreexemplifying technical terms

Re: Comments on document IPC/CE/28/5, Annex V

Illustrating the content of an IPC group could be achieved by

Examples of patent documents

We think, this would at a first step only conc ern newly introduced groups or places where it isvery urgent to give examples because the wording of that place is ambiguous or difficult tounderstand. Such examples should be submitted by the proposing office or by the rapporteur.

Examples of chemical formulae

In some areas of the chemical field of the IPC, e.g. C07D, it is rather difficult to work with thetext of the groups since it is not easy to understand the content of the group. In C07D there are a lot ofplaces where a chemical formula could be added so that the wording could be easier understood. Theformula is the speech of the chemists.

A proposal along that line was already initiated in project PCIPI/C152/91. At that time (1991) itwas decided not to introduce any of the proposed formulae since it was difficult to represent formulaein textual databases. However, it was agreed upon that such formulae would be very useful.After some years the problem was taken up again and considered at the session of Subgroup A inRijswijk, in April 1996, as well as at the seventeenth session of SI-Working Group in June 1996 (seedocument PCIPI/S/XVII/9, Annex F). It was noticed that the reason of the representation of chemicalformulae mentioned above was no longer valid since now in many databases, e.g. CA, CLAIMS,PATDPA, IPC:CLASS CD-ROM etc. chemical formulae are included. For a start one could take up thepart of the proposal of project C152 which was postponed.


IPC/R 3/99

ANNEX 5/ANNEXE 5

UK Patent Office

Comments on IPC Reform

Electronic data illustrating contents of IPC entries

We think that this linked electronic data is essential to the understanding of the IPC. It is verydifficult for the actual entries to be clearly definitive but not to be too long and complex andthe explanation and exemplification of entries in other classifications appears an admirablefeature. We imagine this embodied as a hyperlink symbol in the text of the IIPC that can leaddirectly to the electronic additional data when using an electronic version of IPC.

We can also envisage links from entries to lists of synonyms to enable more efficient databasesearching.

On the other hand, IPC will need a set of rules giving the context of the electronic data and itsrelationship with the entries themselves. It will follow that care will be needed to ensure thatthe additional data will be consistent with the classification entries.

Jim Calvert04 May 1999


IPC/R 3/99

ANNEX 6/ANNEXE 6

May 10, 1999

Mr. Mikhail MakarovHead, IPC Section,Classification and PatentInformation Division,World Intellectual Property Organization34, chemin des Colombettes1211 Geneva 20SWITZERLAND

Re: Rapporteur Report for IPC Reform Working Group- Task 3 – Consider the introductionof electronic data illustrating the contents of IPC entries

___________________________________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Makarov:

Enclosed is the US rapporteur report for Task 3 as set forth in Annex V of the FinalReport of the Twenty-Eighth Session Committee of Experts (IPC/CE/28/5) for yourconsideration. Copies of this document have also been circulated via e-mail to the IPCReform Working Group Members.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Saifer, DirectorInternational Liaison Staff

Enclosurecc Reform WG Members


page 2

REFORM WORKING GROUP

US RAPPORTEUR REPORT ON TASK 3

Consider the introduction of electronic data illustrating the contents of IPC entries.

Our Purpose

Recurrent in discussions leading to the decision of the IPC Committee of Experts tolaunch the IPC reform effort, were suggestions of the need for enhancing the illustrativematerial associated with the IPC. There is little disagreement that such material would notonly increase the ease and effectiveness of IPC use, but also would make importantcontribution towards achieving greater consistency in document placement within the IPC. Inthe past, a major expansion of illustrative items such as category definitions, examples, searchnotes, exemplary technical terms, etc., was seen as not feasible for two principal reasons.Their creation and maintenance would require substantial additional work on the part of theOffices maintaining the IPC; and they would result in an unwieldy and unmanageable bulk inthe IPC’s essentially paper based reference material. However, assumptions underlying theIPC reform effort promise resolution of these obstacles. The reformed IPC is envisioned asbeing optimized for use in an electronic environment wherein illustrative items would be inthe form of electronic data, easy to maintain and adding no meaningful bulk to referencematerial.

The primary mission of our Working Group is to make effective use of the worldwideelectronic environment envisioned for the reformed IPC. This will provide an opportunity forall current and potential users to take full advantage of the full text search and electronicassociation capability which SCIT will provide for them. It is essential that we maximize thebenefits that an electronic environment can provide for classifying in and searching the IPC.Failure to accomplish this goal in an extremely rapid manner will doom the IPC to oblivion.Our rapidly changing, and ever expanding, technology has taught everyone the lesson thathistory is not kind to the obsolete. A horse and carriage is now seldom used to travel across acountry, and it is kindly preserved only as a novelty in the industrial world and not as anecessity. In the electronic world, IPC will be relegated to a similar status without our speedyintervention.

Clearly, electronic links (e.g., hypertexts links) can be created between differentdistinct levels or layers of descriptive information for illustrating the contents of IPC entries.This type of multiple layering of information is required for proper usage of the IPC by avariety of divergent users and for specialized uses. The definitive information necessary forlimiting the scope of each particular classification symbol must be capable of customizationwithout sacrificing uniformity of presentation. Obviously, an expert EP searcher who has adocket including only a very small portion of the IPC will not usually need to look updefinitions of subject matter. However, for a public searcher or an examiner from PT forexample, with a docket covering an extremely large portion of the IPC, frequent use of


page 3

definitions will likely be quite common. Thus, the electronic illustrative information providedand its mode of access must optimize searching for all users within reasonable cost.

Discussion of Threshold Issues

In the Rapporteur’s opinion there are two essential related issues that must be decidedprior to the WG determining what informative data to add or reorganize in the IPC. Werecommend that the WG begin the exploration of this topic by at least their discussion at thismeeting and hopefully their resolution prior to solidification of positions on this task.

The first issue is the creation of an independent IPC master classification file (i.e., IPC-MCF). We firmly believe that the possibility of successfully accomplishing reformation ofthe IPC is strongly dependent upon the successful creation, and continued maintenance of anIPC-MCF. The IPC cannot be converted from its current representative scope to a definitivescope unless the population content of all classification symbols within the ‘official’ IPC are‘officially’ established and maintained. Our suggestion to create this IPC-MCF is notintended to preclude or discourage IPOs from maintaining their own separate classificationfiles with IPC information. However, it would allow IPOs to fully utilize the planned WIPOIPDL for electronic patent document searches without maintaining their own separate files.

This concept is a radical departure in philosophy for the IPC. It requires us all to have apro-active worldwide approach to patent document, and related patent-like information,searching. Currently, the documents searched by most IPOs are the ones that are in theirnational Offices and under their sole control. The use and population of the IPC isaccomplished as each Office sees fit without external control or supervision. We all know theexisting IPC situation will not allow a useful worldwide search to be a possibility. Both theEP and US long ago determined independently that their internal systems would need toreclassify all foreign documents for useful worldwide document searching. The cost of suchan approach is rapidly becoming prohibitive even for the largest IPOs. We must act now or itwill be too late.

The second issue relates to the concept of ‘coextensive titles and definitions’ that, we feel,must be incorporated into the new reformed IPC. It is essential to the creation of meaningfuldefinitions in the IPC which are necessary to ensure consistent assignment of documentsworldwide. It requires that a classification’s title, its assigned obligatory patent documents,and the definition of the classification all have the same scope. If an IPC-MCF is created, thisconcept becomes possible for the first time in the IPC. Without an IPC-MCF, classificationdefinitions are not useful and only very limited additional descriptive information forclarifying scope can be added. Any real degree of useful definitiveness becomes unobtainablefor the IPC.

In the Rapporteur’s view, there are only three possible types of electronic data that areuseful without the coextensive concept being included in the reformed IPC. These are:

(a) the addition of example patents and chemical formulae,(b) massive expansion of the use and location of term definitions, and(c) increased use and location of line notes and references.


page 4

These types of additional data are useful for adding clarity to the classification titles, butthey will not alone make the IPC a preferred worldwide search tool. Without the creation of anIPC-MCF, we are merely getting out of the carriage to help the horse pull it along theautobahn.

Summary of Comments by Issue

Comments on this task have been received from DE, GB, IB, SE, and US. Allcommenting Offices support the inclusion of at least some additional electronic data into theIPC. It is clear from their comments, that these Offices also accept that this data will not belimited to being viewable in the schedules and must be accessed by some type of hypertextslinks. Rapporteur will individually discuss each form of illustrative data covered in thecomments.

1. Inclusion of Example Patents

DE, IB, and SE, all had specific opinions on the use of example patents to illustrate thecontent of groups. DE and SE support their use for newly introduced groups and believe thatthe proposing Office or Rapporteur should provide them. DE states that they may also beuseful for existing classifications where the wording is ambiguous or difficult to understand.IB suggests that only a portion of the document may be needed and that accompanying shortcomments might be useful. SE is not enraptured by the concept, but gives limited support tothe concept. SE fears that the example documents will limit the interpretation of the scope ofthe groups with which they are associated.

The US has experience in the use of example patent documents. In a system such as theUnited States Patent Classification system (i.e., USPC), they are normally not needed exceptwhere a classification’s wording is ambiguous or the mechanical interrelationship is difficultto understand. However, the USPC populates its classifications prior to finalization of titlesand creates definitions for each classification to limit possible alternative interpretations of thescope of classifications.

It is important in Rapporteur’s opinion for the IPC to narrow, as much as practical,alternative interpretations of the scope of each IPC group and subclass. Under current IPCpractice, it is absolutely essential to accomplish this for newly created IPC groups andsubclasses, since they have no backfile in existence. In a representative classification systemsuch as the current IPC, without definitions or an approved official backfile collection ofpatent documents, this can primarily be achieved by the use of example patent documents.Whenever these documents are used to illustrate the content of a classification, they should bein one of the official languages and obtainable by hypertext linked to their appropriateclassification. It would make the documents far more useful if specific text and drawingspertinent to the classifications they are linked to were marked for the searcher as suggested byIB. These example patent documents might also be invaluable to several IPOs during theirtranslation of new IPC classification from the official language IPC text into their preferredlanguages.

2. Inclusion of Chemical Formulae

DE supports the inclusion of chemical formulae in some chemical fields of the IPC whereit is difficult to understand the content of the groups by their titles alone. In their opinion,


page 5

formulae “are the speech of the chemists” in the same manner as drawings of patents are formechanical devices.

Rapporteur supports the concept of including chemical formulae in the IPC wherever it isdeemed useful by the WG. However, it seems that this information should not be part of thesubclass schedules as was necessary in the past, but merely linked by hypertexts to theappropriate classification symbols. This will allow an expansive use of this concept to manyother groups without the fear of needlessly cluttering the subclass schedules.

3. Creation of Classification Definitions

GB and US, had specific opinions supporting the creation of separate definitions forclassifications.

GB believes that separate explanation and exemplification of classification titles is anadmirable feature. These definitions could be linked to their classification using hypertextslinks.

US believes that the use of separate definitions for all specific classifications in the newreformed IPC should be one of the WG’s primary goals. They think that it is the only way tokeep the subclass schedules of manageable length in a definitive system while still providingan essential level of guidance. In their opinion, the WG should make the creation of non-overlapping subclass definitions a top priority, since this will help prevent the dispersion ofsimilar inventions into separate subclasses. They also believe that most term definitions, andmany of the existing ‘i.e.’ terms and expressions now included in classification titles format,should be deleted and incorporated into the separate definitions for their classifications.

In Rapporteur’s opinion, it is important for the IPC to narrow as much as practicalalternative interpretations of the scope of each IPC group and subclass. Separate definitionsfor classifications using different and more elaborate wording for the specified concept dothis. Rapporteur recommends the conceptual adoption and testing of this concept by the WG.

4. Expanding and Modifying Notes or References

IB, SE, and US all expressed specific opinions on various aspects of notes or references.IB states that all notes that are concerned with a classification are already hypertexts

linked to the classification in the 7 th edition IPC CLASS.SE wants the presentation of a reference to make it clear to searchers when a reference

is only informative and when it is intended to limit the scope of its classification. SE alsosupports additional definitions for technical terms for appropriate classifications.

US believes that both notes and references should be removed from the IPC schedules andstored separately to provided redundant access to all classifications having their scopemodified thereby. The notes and references to a classification should also be applied in thereverse direction to insure that the established line is known and followed by all. In USopinion, it would be beneficial to transfer all notes and references currently found with thesection, subsection, or class titles to the subclasses they modify.

The expanded use of notes and references and the clarification of their text and meaningseems to be supported by all of the commenting Offices. The WG needs to determine howbest to link this information to all appropriate classifications and when it should be viewed(e.g., always with each appropriate title in the schedule, with a separate definition of the titleand viewed only when needed for clarification).


page 6

5. Inclusion of Synonyms, Exemplifying Technical Terms, or Catch Term List

GB, IB, SE, and US all expressed specific opinions on the use of synonyms, exampletechnical terms, or catch-term lists for illustrating the content of IPC classifications.Rapporteur has grouped these comments together since they overlap to some extent.

GB supports hypertexts linking of classifications to lists of synonyms to enable efficientsearching.

IB supports the inclusion of hypertexts linked technical terms for exemplifyingclassifications. IB suggests that these lists be far more exhaustive than current term lists in theschedules. These lists would include both readily apparent and non-readily apparent and theyshould be part of the classification for searching purposes. IB warns that creation of these listsis a huge amount of work.

SE would prefer additional examples in titles rather than inexact titles that need additionaldefinitions exemplifying the technical terms used in the titles.

US supports creation of a separate list of terms for each subclass that is useful for on-linefull text searching in one of the official languages. Each IPO could then create parallel catchterm lists and link them electronically to their equivalents in the official list to allow multi-language term searching of all patent documents of WIPO members. US believes these listsare also beneficial in illustrating the content of both their subclasses and dependent groups tosearchers.

The Rapporteur believes there is significant support for linking useful search terms andexample terms to classifications. The Rapporteur suggests that the WG investigate thesuccess of the EP with its existing synonym lists and discuss potential problems. EP iscurrently expanding its full text patent document search capacity and it publishes in threeofficial languages. EP might consider testing the impact of adding equivalent French andGerman terms to some of its existing synonym lists if other Offices agree to help withtranslations. This would give the WG a useful indication of the degree of search improvementover mere abstract searching of documents that might be expected. In many areas of the IPC,the newly translated JP F-terms may also be useful in helping to form such lists. It isRapporteur’s opinion that of the improvements discussed in this paper, this one has thehighest potential for rapidly improving the search capability of IPOs using electronic searchtools provided by SCIT.

6. Guide Terminology Links

IB suggested that terms in the Guide having special meaning when they are used in titles behypertexts linked to the Guide. The Rapporteur supports this proposal.

[End of Annex 6 and of document/Fin de l’annexe 6 et du document]

Documents

IPC/R 3/99 - WIPO