David is of course completely correct on the legal issues concerning
certainty of what is the public record.
However, Stu is making an important point and raising an important issue
that should be addressed by the patent offices.
The emphasis should be on not making the mistakes in the first place.
This is in the hands of the patent offices, which have control of the
printed record. To comment on Stu's observation, I believe that
publication errors are slightly on the increase. Probably to be expected
concerning the increase in patent activity and the USPTO publishing
applications these days, coupled with patent office resource
limitations.
The sort of error spotted by Stu is pretty fundamental and is more than
likely a data entry problem in processing the paperwork within the
patent office for printing of the patent application or granted patent
as in this case. It is a pre-paper publication quality control issue.
We should make sure that we effectively prevent and/or treat the
"warts"! Every time you see "stinky biblio" send it to the appropriate
patent office so that they can do the quality control assessment and try
not to make the same mistake. Having said that, it is astonishing to me
that (apparently) so few mistakes are actually made....can't say the
same for other public service offices! Perhaps patent office employees
are not human after all!
Regards,
Nick White
White & Associates
www.patentuk.com
-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Dickinson [mailto:dickinson@epo.co.at]
Sent: 10 January 2002 17:58
To: stuart.m.kaback@exxonmobil.com
Cc: PIUG Posting
Subject: FW: More stinky biblio
Dear Stu,
With all due respect, I think you are expecting a little too much of an
issuing authority and/or missing the point.
So long as we live in a papercentric society, then the paper publication
is the definitive master copy and any database collection of such
documentation should reproduce exactly what was printed, "warts and
all".
Why should this be?
Because for the moment the paper document is the legal, original
document and in the event of a dispute, it is its content that will be
examined and decided upon. Therefore, an electronic version extracted
from a database should be the same as the published paper document, even
if (perhaps especially if) it has mistakes in it.
Of course, should the normal paper publication process have a correction
handling procedure that results in a document being either partly or
full re-published, then the amended document should also then appear in
the electronic database. In an ideal world, all published copies would
appear in the database, but sometimes in the interests of efficiency it
is only the latest version that is retained for further dissemination.
Kind regards,
David J. Dickinson
EPO Website Manager
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Please note that the views expressed in this e-mail are
solely those of the author and not necessarily those of the
European Patent Office ( www.european-patent-office.org )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-piug-l@derwent.co.uk [mailto:owner-piug-l@derwent.co.uk]On
Behalf Of stuart.m.kaback@exxonmobil.com
Sent: 09 January 2002 18:49
To: Larry.Larson@uspto.gov
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 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
**********************************************************************
--- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.307 / Virus Database: 168 - Release Date: 11/12/2001--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.307 / Virus Database: 168 - Release Date: 11/12/2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 11:56:37 GMT