"Douglas W. Gilmore" wrote:
> By "open ended" do you mean "subjective" -or- "leads to complicated
> explanations which exceed the scope of the original question" -or-
> "better dealt with after having paid the $1400 PERI registration fee"?
I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. These are NOT questions
which lend themselves to easy answers, not least because the whole question
of coverage, retrieval etc. varies considerably according to the type of
structure being searched, and hence often the only reply which you can give
is "it depends." However, to answer some of your points....
> 1. What is the objective, quantitative overlap between Marpat, MMS and
> STN-Registry (for the purposes of structure/sub-structure searching).
Marpat covers Markush structures across all chemical fields from 1988. CAS
Registry (not STN Registry) covers specifically identified compounds which
fit CAS's criteria for registration from 1957, although the bulk of the
cover is from 1965. MMS covers Markush compounds from 1987 across a fixed
sub-set of chemistry (pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals and general organics
including dyes) and limited to patents from Derwent major countries. There
is also extended coverage back to at least 1984 for pharmaceuticals only,
for EP, WO, US and FR only, plus the complete selection of French BSM
patents from the 1960s and 70s.
That is the briefest description I can supply. More details on what
constitutes Derwent sections B C and E plus major countries and CAS
criteria for registration can be found via Derwent and CAS respectively.
> 2. What would be the implications of performing a structure search in
> only one of these databases?
You'd miss things - I know, I've done it.
>
> 3. What are your subjective opinions as to which databases constitute
> the vanguard products for performing chemical structure searches for
> returning both patent and literature references? Why?
It depends. MMS and Marpat by definition only cover patent literature.
The broadest source for chemical sub-structure searching in the non-patent
literature, since 1957, has to be CAS Registry. However, it is often
overlooked that there are other structure searchable files like Beilstein
(very good for pre-1970 compounds and for compounds originating from the
E.European and Soviet literature) and Derwent's DDF file (restricted
access, for specified subject areas) in its STN implementation. Both of
these cover non-patent literature, but only register specific compounds,
not generic disclosures. Hence, the ability to search for very broad novel
compounds in the non-patent literature is substantially more limited than
the patent literature. The whole area of novel compounds in other
documents such as university theses is virtually untapped.
This discussion has not really touched on structure searching in the older
literature using fragment codes in WPI and/or CLAIMS and/or API files.
> 4. To the extent that the available online databe products are not
> isomporphic nor coextensive, would anyone agree that a search involving
> significant financial exposure for the client (i.e., an infringement or
> freedom-to-operate search pursuant to a prospective $25E6 licensing
> agreement) would require a thorough search of every available
> resource? If not, why not?
I used to find unique items in EACH file when searching by CAS Registry,
Marpat, MMS, and WPI using fragmentation codes. It was also my practice
with my former employer to utilise Beilstein as an extension of the
chemical literature for novelty searching. I'm not familiar with the
citation of a licensing agreement (do I have some control characters in
your message?) but as far as I'm concerned, thorough means thorough which
means you keep searching wherever you can whenever your experience as a
searcher tells you that there might be extra literature out there. If the
case is business-critical, you keep going - sadly, managements are not
always ready to recognise the skills needed for this type of work.
> 5. Would anybody here rely only on the STN databases for performing the
> electronic component of their chemical patent search (structural or
> otherwise)? If so, why?
Not usually - it depends what they find on the first sweep.
-- Stephen Adams Magister Ltd. Crown House, 231 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 4LS, GB Tel: +44 (0)118 929 9515 Fax: +44 (0)118 929 9516 e-mail: stevea@magister.co.ukRegistered in England and Wales. Company No. 3407685 Registered address : Canada House, 272 Field End Road, Eastcote, Ruislip, Middlesex HA4 9NA.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 15:58:06 EDT