Swami:
We see a lot of these - how about this week's WO0000469 from Wayne Hughes
Inst, entitled "Alkyl ketones as anticancer agents"? This is undoubtedly
therapeutic, but has been classed as A61r. We found it (and associated it
with three others from the same applicant) on the basis of a C07c
classification; but for that, it might have eluded us.
More worrying, perhaps, is the fact that some search software, notably that
on the PCT website, fails to recognize incomplete IPCs. So a case assigned
simply to A61k (no group or sub-group) will NOT be retrieved by a strategy
which includes A61k (truncation implied); the same strategy would however
retrieve an item fully classified as A61k-31/34, for example.
There's no ideal answer - except to be very vigilant. We try! I look forward
to seeing your other responses - from the USPTO, perhaps.....?
Kind regards
Peter Steele
Managing Director, Current Patents Ltd
Middlesex House, 34-42 Cleveland Street
London W1P 6LB, UK
Tel: +44 (0)171 323 0323
Fax: +44 (0)171 580 5646
E-mail: peter.steele@cursci.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: subramaniyan_narayanaswami@sandwich.pfizer.com
[mailto:subramaniyan_narayanaswami@sandwich.pfizer.com]
Sent: 06 January 2000 13:39
To: PIUG-L@derwent.tecc.co.uk
Subject: International Patent Classifications
In a recent issue of Current patent Gazette (Week 51 dated 24/12/99), I read
about assigning a non-existent classification A12E for the PCT patent
WO9965318.
This raises the question about the absoluteness of assignment of IPCs to
certain patents. Over the last months, we have come across PCT patents
classified under G01N, but clearly should have been additionally classified
under C12N or C12P or C12Q. I am conscious of the pitfalls of using IPCs for
searching, but they are powerful tools in certain areas of technology. I
have a few questions in this area:
1. Who assigns the classifications? Is it the applicant or the searching
patent office for the PCTs? If it is the latter, is there a difference
between A2 and A3 document?
2. If there is any inconstancy in the assignment of classifications, is
there any mechanism for submitting corrections to the respective patent
offices?
3. When the PCTs enter the national phase, do the national offices either
reassign the classifications or add further classifications?
4. How does Derwent treat the IPCs from the basic to the equivalents? Does
it include all the IPCs available as each additional member is added to the
family?
5. As the technology develops, further classifications are added though each
revision period. What is the percentage increase of classifications between
say 5th and 6th edition? Are any classifications deleted during the
revision?
I would appreciate your comments.
Swami
(S. Narayanaswami)
Pfizer Central Research
Sandwich, Kent
U.K. CT13 9NJ
subramaniyan_narayanaswami@sandwich.pfizer.com
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and
may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to
this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not an
addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this e-mail or
any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorised and
may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender
immediately.
Pfizer Limited is registered in England under No. 526209 with its
registered office at Ramsgate Road, Sandwich, Kent CT13 9NJ
PFIZER CENTRAL RESEARCH
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachment has been virus checked by the
Pfizer Research Sandwich Data Centre.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 15:58:01 EDT