Derwent has always indexed all of the IPC codes they find in any family member
(there may have been a limit to the amount of data in the field at one time).
In since sometime in 1998, Derwent has been checking for IPC validity in US, WO
some other patents and entering revised codes into their records. There's a
list of corrected IPCs on their website at
http://www.derwent.com/resource/frameset.html. I looked at a sample or two, and
the incorrect codes seem to be nonexistent IPCs rather than incorrectly assigned
real codes. It's better than nothing.
The USPTO assignments of IPC codes are made from a concordance with the US
classification system, which probably results in different codes from those in
equivalent publications from other countries. IFI has supplemented the the
CLAIMS databases by adding IPC codes to the records of patents issued before the
US began assigning IPC codes.
There has always been inconsistency in the assignment of IPCs by various
countries. This carries over to the assignment of IPCs by the various PCT
receiving offices. One of the disadvantages to the PCT, in fact, is the loss of
diversity in the assignment of classification codes.
Edlyn Simmons
Internet Mail Message
Received from host: luggage.tecc.co.uk
[193.128.6.129]
Envelope Sender: owner-piug-l@tecc.co.uk
From: subramaniyan_narayanaswami@sandwich.pfizer.com on 01/06/2000 08:39 AM
To: piug-l@derwent.tecc.co.uk
cc: (bcc: Edlyn Simmons-ES/PGI)
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