Re: Derwent vs the Web -Reply

Roy Zimmermann (roy.zimmermann@medtronic.com)
Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:34:00 -0500

Peggy Lucero raises an interesting issue, Derwent's WORLD PATENTS INDEX
vs. Websites for patents. Andy Berks correctly points out that if one
can only search a title & abstract for a set of keywords/synonyms, then
DWPI probably will yield better results. But be aware of a few caveats.
The several Websites that I search most often, Micropatent Worldwide
Patsearch, Esp@cenet EP, WO & Worldwide, and to a lesser degree, the IBM
Patent Server, are consistently more current by 3-5 weeks than is DWPI
for coverage of EP & WO documents. Today (4/15/99) an Esp@cenet EP-A
search contained documents published 4/14. IBM EP-A appeared to contain
documents up to 3/24/99, albeit a field search by publication date is
not directly supported on the IBM site. Micropatent had EP-A documents
issued through 4/7/99 as of today, WO documents for 4/8/99, and US from
4/6/99. No one seems to have the US from 4/13/99 as of 4/15 late
morning CDT. To search a specific assignee for recent EP or WO
documents, I'd probably start with a Micropatent Worldwide Patsearch,
selecting US, EP & WO documents, just to insure I hadn't overlooked a
US case. Search the assignee and an IPC main class or classes most
likely to cover the area of the inventions. Set the number of documents
to be viewed at a large enough number (up to 500 available)to reduce the
number of webpages to screen. Then browse the titles list, pick the
first that looks close, and pull up the frontpage abstract, classes, &
potentially, a drawing. The added detail of the frontpage view helps to
offset the lack of enhanced titles & abstracts. Plus, if the document
looks relevant, you can order it easily from that frontpage view. I
find the Micropatent interface significantly quicker for screening than
Esp@cenet, albeit you can retrieve more of the documents on Esp@cenet
without ordering the complete document. Given your chargeback
environment, I'm not sure you'd save much money for your client by
relying solely on Web interfaces which require multiple PDF views for
each document, presuming you must charge back your time as well as your
online expenses. Frankly, I'd probably run both a Derwent WPI search,
which provides enhanced titles & abstracts, always in English, to get
better keyword retrieval, then use a Web search by assignee & IPC to
screen for more recent patents, or patents covering the technology of
interest, but where the typically cryptic expression of patent
attorneys makes a keyword retrieval difficult. A "pleasantly odiferous
pedalous object" by any other name may smell as sweet, but it's much
harder to retrieve.

Roy Zimmermann
Patent Information Specialist
612-514-3304
roy.zimmermann@medtronic.com

>>> Andy Berks <BERKSA@war.wyeth.com> 04/15/99 09:32am >>>
My guess if you are using keywords as a strategy that you will get a
better retrieval with Derwent. Derwent is more likely to put relevant
keywords in their abstract than would appear in the abstract on the
original document. The PCT web site only covers PCT patents. The EPO
site, esp@cenet, covers lots of issuing authorities, but their search
engine is primitive.

Nancy Lambert has commented more extensively on this very subject of
free vs. value added search services. Check the archives of the PIUG
list.

Andy Berks
Wyeth Ayerst Research

>>> "Peggy Lucero" <Lucero@ba-iplaw.com> 4/14/99 4:32:18 PM >>>
I recently did a search for a large company (mechanical art)
to locate all their PCT and EP applications and patents from 1998 to
present dealing with a specific 4 keywords "ORED" together. I did it in
Derwent on Dialog. I found 28 records.

After giving it to the atty., it was suggested that I attempt to do this
type of searching on the PCT & WIPO websites in the future, to save
clients $$.
I will be hanging out on those sites over the next several days to see
if, in fact, this is do-able.
But, figured someone from the PIUG might have more familiarity with
these web offerings and might want to offer some caveats, if applicable.
Your comments are most appreciated.
Thank you.

Peggy Lucero
Manager of Information Resources
voice: 202/508-9179
lucero@ba-iplaw.com
fax: 202/508-9299

NOTICE: Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. will be changing its domain name,
effective April 19, 1999, to bannerwitcoff.com. This will apply to all
E-mail addresses as well as our web site.

IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This message is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed. This message contains
information from the law firm of Banner & Witcoff, LTD. which may be
privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
retention, archiving, or copying of the communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by return E-mail.














!