Bob wrote: "This can't work as each search, in theory, will have to be of
the first
magnitude as each will be the basis for examination. If a "low cost,
commodity, nominal quality" search is provided it should only be a matter of
time before the provider of said search is de-certified for a substandard
product."
Lucy wrote: "A "nominal" search will lead only to nominal examination.
Nominal quality in search reports is simply not acceptable."
Bob, Lucy, all ..
My suggestion that there will be "premium" and "nominal" quality searches
available at various pricing levels ("certified" quality available at market
driven prices) simply recognizes the facts that:
[1] search quality already varies significantly (between searches performed
under PCT application, at the USPTO, etc.)
[2] regareless of the ISO 9000 class certification, there will be "good" and
"nominal" performance by those service providers - just as there are by
asbestos removal companies, environmental contamination site remediation
companies, other government service contractors, etc.
[3] the quality and quantity of prior art resources available privately, or
through EPO / USPTO etc. databases vary significantly between the
classifications (more precise prior art resources for stuffed talking toys
than nanotechnology),
[4] there will always be the ultra-conservative applicant that wants a
super-premium prior art clearance -- just as you have today with somme
applicants referencing 100 citations, compared to those applicants citing
ONE or less - and would pay "more" than the "commodity" rate.
[5] a commodity rate for a nominal quality report is what the USPTO must
ensure at a minimum. This statement is little more than a "commercial"
equivalent of what the PTO does today -- it addresses the requirement to
pump out 300,000 search reports per year within an overall acceptable
budget.
Therefore, I am not suggesting that there will be unacceptably poor search
reports flooding the marketplace - but that once certified, word will spread
about which provider goes the "extra mile" for what competitive price, and
what providers offer the minimum level of quality necessary to maximize
profits (highest search quota) yet still retain the certification.
Also keep in mind that under a competitive service model, a search report
for stuffed talking toys will probably be less costly than the report for
nanotechnology improvements -- therefore our "one price fits all"
expectation of searches performed by the USPTO will be replaced with a
pricing scheme that more accurately reflects the investment and intensity of
the search within each art sector.
But I think fairly well defines a market-driven quality / price offering.
Best,
Andy Gibbs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Thomson Scientific 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 - 11:57:12 GMT