Dear Stu,
Whilst you are a highly respected 'expert' in this area, and we all
benefit significantly from your activities (which are fully supported
and endorsed by us) we must take (a little) exception to:
"the most important patent office in the world"
I do believe that the rest of the world may not fully agree with you.
Whilst national pride is admirable, one should not get carried away. I
believe that the EPO is also a significant (and growing) player in this
area.
perhaps:
"one of the most significant patent offices in the world" might be more
palatable.
Having said that, please keep up the good work and challenges. We, in
business, rely on the issuance of quality, well challenged, patents [and
other forms of IPR]. We make (often significant) business decisions
based upon the probable protection (always a risk of course) that we
receive under the patent system. If the system cannot support this then
the basis for a lot of businesses is laid upon flawed ground and this
can only (and is) result in an erosion the fundamental basis of the
capitalist system. It may also lead to more companies being secretive
about their technology, or fooling the system through 'crafty' drafting,
that defeats the purpose of 'encouraging innovative' through disclosure
[with the reward of protection for the granted period].
Perhaps the legal system is happy, but we in business are certainly not.
Russell G. Hollamby
Intellectual Asset Manager
Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.
Volmerlaan 8, Postbus 60, 2280 AB Rijswijk, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 311 3448 Fax: 2779 Other Tel: +31 61 104 7302
Email: r.g.hollamby@siep.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com/eandp-en
-----Original Message-----
From: stuart.m.kaback@exxonmobil.com
[mailto:stuart.m.kaback@exxonmobil.com]
Sent: 09 January 2002 18:49
To: Larry.Larson@uspto.gov; stuart.m.kaback@exxonmobil.com
Cc: piug-l@derwent.co.uk
Subject: RE: More stinky biblio
Larry,
I believe that my notoriety in the field of patent information is due in
substantial part to the fact that I am not accepting of unacceptable
conditions. I think it is sad that the most important patent office in
the
world doesn't seem to comprehend how seriously wrong it is for it to
disseminate faulty information without providing a method to correct
errors. Everyone makes errors, every system makes errors. Other
documentation systems that I deal with have appropriate systems which
permit them, when such errors are pointed out, to correct them--they
take
seriously a responsibility to provide correct information to their
users.
Sadly, the USPTO still seems to consider itself just an organization for
issuing patents; any documentation that results apparently isn't worth
worrying about too much.
I said sadly--but sad is far too mild a term. I challenge the USPTO to
take seriously the responsibility of producing an archive of information
that is as accurate as possible--and that can be corrected when the
inevitable errors creep in.
Stu Kaback
Larry.Larson@US
PTO.GOV To:
stuart.m.kaback@exxonmobil.com, piug-l@derwent.co.uk
cc:
Subject: RE: More stinky
biblio
01/09/02 12:29
PM
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 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