RE: IFI's Probable Assignees for PGPs just got better

Edlyn,
 
Unintentional errors do happen in databases, as you say, but in this
instance the Richardson-Merrell/Richardson Vicks issue originated from
USPTO data, rather than from the CHI (now ipIQ) hierarchy data. USPTO
assignee code 475045 associates these two assignees, apparently
incorrectly, and that is what is reflected on the Delphion Integrated
View.
 
The ipIQ/CHI data was completely removed from Delphion on September 25,
2005, as announced, and is not responsible for what you currently see =
in
the Delphion Integrated View.

Best regards,

Neil Larque
Customer Technical Support Strategy Manager
=========================
=========================
====================
Thomson Scientific,
14 Great Queen Street, London WC2B 5DF, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7344 2999
Fax: +44 (0)20 7344 2900
Email: ts.support.emea_at_thomson.com <mailto:ts.support.emea_at_thomson.com> =

URL: http://www.thomsonscientific.com
<http://www.thomsonscientific.com/>
Customer Support Center: www.scientific.thomson.com/support
<outbind://3/www.scientific.thomson.com/support>
=========================
=========================
====================

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-piug-l_at_derwent.co.uk [mailto:owner-piug-l_at_derwent.co.uk] On
Behalf Of simmons.es_at_pg.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 8:51 PM
To: BOB BUNTROCK
Cc: DSlaughter_at_ificlaims.com; owner-piug-l_at_derwent.co.uk; Steele, Peter
Robert (TS UK); PIUG-L_at_derwent.co.uk
Subject: Re: IFI's Probable Assignees for PGPs just got better



Even with the best intentions, databases are sometimes responsible for
errors in corrections to assignees. CHI decided years ago that patents
issued to my old company Richardson-Merrell much have become the
property of one of its successor companies, Richardson Vicks, and the
mistake still shows up in Delphion's Integrated View. (Which means =
that
the CHI patentee information has survived ipIQ's withdrawal of =
Corporate
Tree data so far). Derwent was never able to figure out that Ohio
University and Ohio State University were two different patentees.

Edlyn simmons




        "BOB BUNTROCK" <buntrock16_at_verizon.net>
Sent by: owner-piug-l_at_derwent.co.uk


09/28/2005 01:21 PM


        
        To: <Peter.Steele_at_thomson.com>,
<DSlaughter_at_ificlaims.com>, <PIUG-L_at_derwent.co.uk>
        cc: (bcc: Edlyn Simmons-ES/PGI)
        Subject: Re: IFI's Probable Assignees for PGPs just got
better



Both sound like good services and are obviously needed. It's no wonder
that there are occasional discrepancies on US published applications
between the predicted/probable assignee and the Real McCoy given the
not-so-great track record of USPTO. et al. consistently indicating the
correct assignee on the face of issued patents.
  
I'm reminded of the "good old days" when there were two Standard Oils
left, Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) and Standard Oil Co. Ohio. Since I
worked for the former (later Amoco Corp.--thank goodness-- and even
later and currently BP) I'm more familiar with incorrect assignments on
their patents. You won't believe the number of patents that were =
issued
to Standard Oil Co. Chicago (yes the home offices were in Chicago, but
still incorrect), etc. and even wrongly assigned to SOHIO and the
reverse. I'm sure that SOHIO veterans will recall a spate of similar
errors. If one was totally familiar with all of one's own company's
technology being patented, the errors were obvious. Otherwise, the
technology was a clue to (in)correctness if different enough from the
other company's portfolio. Another clue was if the individual =
inventors
were unfamiliar. It should have been obvious to even an outsider if !
the inventor's addresses were all in Ohio for a patent incorrectly
assigned to Indiana Standard. I'm not sure how much the reverse
happened, e.g. patents assigned to SOHIO with inventors living in
Indiana or Illinois.
  
I'm also not sure if all of the misassignments were corrected. I know
that IFI and Derwent would make the corrections when alerted if they
hadn't already caught the errors (they often did, but couldn't be
expected to catch them all). Colleagues at Rohm and Haas told me that
there was often similar confusion between R&H and Rohm gmbh.
  
Plus ca change ...
  
-- Bob Buntrock
Orono, ME
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:Peter.Steele_at_thomson.com> Peter.Steele_at_thomson.com
To: <mailto:DSlaughter_at_ificlaims.com> DSlaughter_at_ificlaims.com ;
<mailto:PIUG-L_at_derwent.co.uk> PIUG-L_at_derwent.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 11:11 AM
Subject: RE: IFI's Probable Assignees for PGPs just got better

Hello Darlene,
  
It's very interesting that you're trying to fill this gap, as it's
something we've always aspired to do here for pharmaceutical patents as
they appear, feeding through ultimately into Derwent WPI. It's a =
feature
that users will undoubtedly appreciate, even if very occasionally
"probable" turns out to be "misleading".
  
If we make use of the excellent USPTO Assignment site, and can use
inventor and representative addresses, our experience is that the
majority of inventions can be linked to a corporate originator with a
high degree of certainty. Another possibility, as you indicate, is that
a family member will be published subsequently with a firm assignee.
Like you, we observe that by the time a US application is published,
there is often a firm assignment available via the USPTO site, so
ultimately we hope that this assignment information will be =
incorporated
on a timely basis into the bibliographic details of the PGPs.
  
Would someone from the USPTO perhaps be able to advise on any plans
there are to ensure that PGP records, as published electronically,
incorporate as far as possible the latest assignment information?
  
Peter Steele
Director, Current Awareness
Pharma/Chemistry Markets,Thomson Scientific
Ground Floor North, Middlesex House
34-42 Cleveland Street
London W1T 4JE
peter.steele_at_thomson.com
+44 20 7070 6508 (direct); +44 20 7070 6570 (fax)
< <http://www.current-patents.com/> http://www.current-patents.com>
< <http://www.cp-dolphin.com/> http://www.cp-dolphin.com>


*********************************************************************
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: ITHelpdesk_at_derwent.co.uk

*********************************************************************



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-piug-l_at_derwent.co.uk [mailto:owner-piug-l_at_derwent.co.uk]On
Behalf Of Slaughter, Darlene
Sent: 28 September 2005 03:26
To: PIUG-L_at_derwent.co.uk
Subject: IFI's Probable Assignees for PGPs just got better



IFI is pleased to announce that our Probable Assignee field for U.S.
published applications just got better. To support you in finding most
of those elusive 67%+ "unassigned" pre-grant publications (PGP) through
an assignee search, we have significantly augmented our PGP probable
assignee field so that 87% of the PGP's in IFI files (IFIPAT, IFIUDB,
IFICDB) include a "probable assignee" name.


IFI has combined the data from the USPTO's Assignment File, the =
assignee
name on the associated granted patent and the company name listed in =
the
Legal Rep field to increase the "probablity" of you finding PGP's by
assignee name.


Once the assignee data collection has been processed from these =
sources,
all assignee names will be run through the renowned IFI assignee name
standardization process to further improve your PGP assignee retrieval. =



Probable Assignees from all available sources are currently provided
with the annual reload. Our next step will be to include Probable
Assignees from all available sources as part of monthly updates. And
sometime after that we will also be including them in weekly updates.


IFI's enhanced Probable Assignee field will be available on STN later
this week, and on Dialog and Questel Orbit in the next couple of =
months.



For search tips, please see refer to the host's banners or contact IFI
at:
info_at_ificlaims.com or 800.331.4955.


Darlene Slaughter
General Manager
IFI CLAIMS Patent Services
A Wolters Kluwer business


Dslaughter @ ificlaims.com






**********************************************************************
Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and
not necessarily the company. This email and any files transmitted with
it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient.
It may contain material protected by attorney-client privilege. If
you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivering to the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email in error please notify IT Support by
telephone on +44 (0) 1829 771155.
Adis International http://www.adis.com
**********************************************************************








Received on Thu Sep 29 2005 - 12:25:24