Nancy, Stu, Roy, Elyse, Bob and others have pointed out the obvious
disadvantages of free text / keyword searching. What we have available
now, compared to what was available in the 1980s, shows how far
technology can come in a short time, and in fact, how much better we
have it today than we did a decade ago. As a skilled woodworker, I find
that even with all of the advanced power equipment I have, I often pull
out the hand chisel and cabinet-maker's scraper because, as in keyword
searching for patent research, they still serve a valuable purpose in
the right situations. You simply must know *when* and *how* to use them
- and to what end. The debate will be unending.
But what about the Crystal ball glimpse into the future?
For one - we'll find that "the more things change, the more they stay
the same".
I believe that over the next 12 months or sooner, we will see a new
genre of search tools emerge that will challenge "convention" and
advance Internet-based patent research to a new level - but as we all
know, there is never an "ultimate" level (right "HAL"?).
These tools will combine keyword searching, patent field searching such
as UPC, IPC, abstract etc., based on the new WIPO / PCT E-Filing
Standards [XML-based DTD structure developed for the electronic filing
and processing of international applications: Part 7 and Annex F of the
PCT, made under Rule 89.2(b) of the PCT regs.], along with a more
intelligent natural language interpretation of patent content (free
text, or text residing within any of the 70+ specified patent fields).
In essence, electronic "searching" will soon evolve into electronic
"reading" with a new capability of interpretation of the invention
concepts - even concepts completely devoid of "keywords" one would
expect to find in a searchable document.
Combined together in a single search tool, keyword, natural language
concepts and E-PCT document standards classification fields could create
a very powerful combination, albeit a little more complex when compared
to currently available research tools.
...the ultimate "gotta-have" patent research tool.
While the research "engines" may evolve to this new level, they will be
useless without single-point-of-entry into a global patent data
repository. The state of the industry today is that patent databases
are incomplete, technically and geographically non-integrated, are
scattered around the world, and are running on disparate legacy systems.
However, I believe also that a new genre of patent databases will soon
become available to researchers as well. Keep in mind that as these
one-stop "mega-tools" emerge, they will show how incapable even "fast"
microprocessors really are, and will challenge access times to mass data
storage arrays (after all, we're talking about databases that will rival
the tax collection systems of mid-sized countries). So, there will be
more data - slower, most likely. Then as time goes on and hardware
advances, "slower", more robust searches will evolve into "faster".
Then in a year or two, we can all look back and say "remember when ...".
But we'll have raised our expectations and will have built a new list of
inefficiency complaints regarding the new tools as well. But it's
through this grumbling and spirited exchange that new methods and
technologies emerge to benefit all.
It's interesting to see that the more things change, the more one thing
stays the same: "human nature". :-)
Oh, these scenarios may not be totally "crystal ball".
Man ... you gotta love this business!
Andy Gibbs
-- CEO, PatentCafe 441 Colusa Ave, Yuba City, CA 95991 tel: 530.671.0200 fax: 530-671-0201 http://www.patentcafe.com/corpUnited States Patent & Trademark Office Patent Advisory Committee 2001-2004 Member: E-Government Subcommittee -- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail does not constitute legal advice and must not be relied upon for accuracy or applicability to your particular situation. This information is of a personal nature, and does not reflect any official or unofficial policy, position or opinion of the US Patent and Trademark Office or any department or agency of the US Government. --
I wholeheartedly agree with what Stu Kaback and others have pointed out. I too have been talking and writing about these issues since the mid 1990s, mostly in the process of comparing patent searching on the fast-growing Internet patent information resources (which in the early days offered mostly just free-text searching) with that available from the traditional online databases with their in-depth indexing, chemical structure search capabilities, multiple patent classifications, and so on.
To quote an early article of mine: "Free text is just about the worst way to search patents. Text in patents is repetitious, inconsistent, and confusing. Patent writers by law are their own lexicographers, and they have considerable leeway in what they may name chemicals and other patentable entities. Patent lawyers deliberately describe things generically (since they don't want to limit their inventions) and in ways that make it as difficult as possible for their competition to find out what they're doing. Different companies
Nancy Lambert ChevronTexaco 510-242-3161
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Derwent Information Limited will accept no responsibility or liability in respect to this email other than to the addressee. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately via email: postmaster@derwent.co.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 11:57:09 GMT