The simple fact is that the 6,160,029 bibliographic data in the full-text
database (and in PTO-distributed full-text data) *can't* be fixed, because
it is correct, in that it agrees with the issued patent as printed (see the
full-page image for confirmation.) Under present PTO processes and systems ,
it will stay that way forever. PTO electronic data, both in databases and in
bulk data on magnetic media, is not intended to be a collection of
absolutely correct information; rather, it is intended to be an accurate
rendering of PTO's legal publications.
PTO does not have any process or system which actually corrects errors in
published documents by either re-printing those documents or by correcting
electronic data (either in-house or as distributed to the public), no matter
how egregious the errors might be. PTO has only Certificates of Correction
and Reissue Patents as tools. Certificates of Correction become appended to
the full-page image database, and Reissues are added to the database as new
documents, but published documents containing errors correctly reflected in
PTO full-text can never actually be corrected. This obviously complicates
the automation of patent searches and makes problematic full reliance on
electronic, rather than paper, patent collections.
It would theoretically be possible to correct errors by reprinting corrected
patents with a new publication date (as distinguished from the issue date),
and then updating electronic data to the most recently published content
(akin to software version control), but PTO does not have such a process.
Regards,
Larry Larson, USPTO
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stuart.m.kaback@exxonmobil.com
> [mailto:stuart.m.kaback@exxonmobil.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:11 AM
> To: piug-l@derwent.co.uk
> Subject: More stinky biblio
>
>
> When US 6160029 issued, it indicated that it was based on a
> cip of four US
> provisional applications: 123813 and 123814 of 3/11/99; and
> 126887 and
> 126888 of 3/30/99. However, 126888 turns out to be the underlying
> application for WO200058785 to Concord Camera (+ EP1166177;
> AU200040208),
> rather than a Dow invention. A check of the PAIR page shows
> that US6160029
> is indeed derived from provisionals 123813 and 123814, but
> NOT from 126887
> or 126888. I have no idea what 126887 might have been; it
> shows up in no
> database so far as I can tell. Yet the incorrect priorities
> still show for
> this patent on the USPTO website.
>
> Is it my imagination, or has there been a deterioration in quality of
> biblio in recent years? Meanwhile, this should be fixed.
>
> Stu Kaback
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> www.mimesweeper.com
> **********************************************************************
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 11:56:36 GMT