- Email: [email protected]
Appendix. French Discussion Group — Report
PATLIB 96, a supplement to World Patent Information, Vol. 19 (1997) © 1997 Published by Elsevier Science Ud. All rights reserved Pages 91-92
epergarnon
Appendix. French Discussion Group -
Report
Alain Chapard, INPI, Paris Introduction
2.3. Links between centres (in the same or in different countries)
Big changes have taken place since the first PATLIB meeting in Munich: the number of European centres has greatly increased, more and more nationalities are represented, and information media have changed radically. It seems an opportune moment to take stock and to adapt the structure of PATLIB to this new context.
Such links exist already but need to be developed, particularly in border regions. Each centre must keep a free hand in the contacts it establishes with other centres. Exchanges (of staff, documentation, information) should be handled according to the possibilities available to each centre, particularly since centres' financing arrangements vary from one cOl~ntry to another.
1. PATUB conference
Individual centres' methods of operating are no obstacle to links between them. The example was cited of the Strasbourg, Nancy and Nuremberg centres, which had decided to forge closer links.
The group suggests defining PATLIB' s status and tasks. Patlib currently brings together 126 centres in Europe, and without a suitable structure might soon cease to function properly.
3. Search software
Its task is currently limited to information, but other roles can also be envisaged. Possible reference structures include the PTDL in the USA. and certain WIPO working parties.
3.1. Users' needs. How to get feedback?
The group asked how users' needs should be taken into account when developing documentation tools in general; it attached particular importance to the monitoring and development of existing and future software.
2. Role of European centres 2.1. Centres differ in nature
An ad hoc group should be set up to work on the interface between users and producers. "Users" means the general public, whether novice or expert. Documentalists, for example, could test software and hardware at various stages of development on the public in the reading rooms. This would help avoid criticism after the event.
At the moment, the centres in Europe differ in structure, financing arrangements, and even in their function. Some countries (e.g. Belgium) do not have any regional centres; everything goes via the national office. Also, in most countries the centres' role is by no means limited to patent information.
3.2. Compatibility of software Participants said that certain functionalities available on different software products had good points which should be taken into account when creating a single software. At all events, a multiplicity of mutually incompatible interrogation software products must be avoided.
2.2. Development of the centres Participants pointed out that certain services provided by the centres are going to change (some will be reduced, others will grow) as new technology comes in. The participants foresee difficulties, and would like to be able to anticipate developments. They therefore consider it absolutely essential to be involved in discussions and in future projects.
4. New technology activities
impact on centres'
The point mentioned in paragraph 2.2 above was confirmed in the speech by Mr Kober, President of the EPO, who said CD-ROMs had reduced the amount of paper copies supplied by the EPO. The EPO now provides 80% few
In the first instance, there should be a guide to the European centres, more comprehensive than the current list and taking as a reference the earlier DGXIII publication. 91
92
PATUB 96 Proceedings
copies of patents than in 1989. This trend will undoubtedly intensify as patents are made available in full-text form on the Internet. * The European centres will then see one of their roles reduced. In this connection it was also pointed out that the professional clients who are the main consumers of primary documents will eventually no longer need the services provided by the centres, whose clients are then likely to be primarily inexperienced users needing a lot of help but generating little by way of services.
5. CD hardware The centres said they had a lot of problems with this, due to several factors:
* QuesteloOrbit already offers on the Internet (Q-PAT service) the fuU texts (excluding any images) of US patents since 1974.
•
too many different types of hardware;
•
incompatibility between workstations and peripherals supplied at different periods; and
•
hardware rapidly obsolete.
The EPO has produced a useful collection of the different workstations and peripherals currently available. This publication is entitled "Patent Information: Hardware Requirements and Developments". However, centres still face substantial difficulties on this front.
epergarnon
Appendix. French Discussion Group -
Report
Alain Chapard, INPI, Paris Introduction
2.3. Links between centres (in the same or in different countries)
Big changes have taken place since the first PATLIB meeting in Munich: the number of European centres has greatly increased, more and more nationalities are represented, and information media have changed radically. It seems an opportune moment to take stock and to adapt the structure of PATLIB to this new context.
Such links exist already but need to be developed, particularly in border regions. Each centre must keep a free hand in the contacts it establishes with other centres. Exchanges (of staff, documentation, information) should be handled according to the possibilities available to each centre, particularly since centres' financing arrangements vary from one cOl~ntry to another.
1. PATUB conference
Individual centres' methods of operating are no obstacle to links between them. The example was cited of the Strasbourg, Nancy and Nuremberg centres, which had decided to forge closer links.
The group suggests defining PATLIB' s status and tasks. Patlib currently brings together 126 centres in Europe, and without a suitable structure might soon cease to function properly.
3. Search software
Its task is currently limited to information, but other roles can also be envisaged. Possible reference structures include the PTDL in the USA. and certain WIPO working parties.
3.1. Users' needs. How to get feedback?
The group asked how users' needs should be taken into account when developing documentation tools in general; it attached particular importance to the monitoring and development of existing and future software.
2. Role of European centres 2.1. Centres differ in nature
An ad hoc group should be set up to work on the interface between users and producers. "Users" means the general public, whether novice or expert. Documentalists, for example, could test software and hardware at various stages of development on the public in the reading rooms. This would help avoid criticism after the event.
At the moment, the centres in Europe differ in structure, financing arrangements, and even in their function. Some countries (e.g. Belgium) do not have any regional centres; everything goes via the national office. Also, in most countries the centres' role is by no means limited to patent information.
3.2. Compatibility of software Participants said that certain functionalities available on different software products had good points which should be taken into account when creating a single software. At all events, a multiplicity of mutually incompatible interrogation software products must be avoided.
2.2. Development of the centres Participants pointed out that certain services provided by the centres are going to change (some will be reduced, others will grow) as new technology comes in. The participants foresee difficulties, and would like to be able to anticipate developments. They therefore consider it absolutely essential to be involved in discussions and in future projects.
4. New technology activities
impact on centres'
The point mentioned in paragraph 2.2 above was confirmed in the speech by Mr Kober, President of the EPO, who said CD-ROMs had reduced the amount of paper copies supplied by the EPO. The EPO now provides 80% few
In the first instance, there should be a guide to the European centres, more comprehensive than the current list and taking as a reference the earlier DGXIII publication. 91
92
PATUB 96 Proceedings
copies of patents than in 1989. This trend will undoubtedly intensify as patents are made available in full-text form on the Internet. * The European centres will then see one of their roles reduced. In this connection it was also pointed out that the professional clients who are the main consumers of primary documents will eventually no longer need the services provided by the centres, whose clients are then likely to be primarily inexperienced users needing a lot of help but generating little by way of services.
5. CD hardware The centres said they had a lot of problems with this, due to several factors:
* QuesteloOrbit already offers on the Internet (Q-PAT service) the fuU texts (excluding any images) of US patents since 1974.
•
too many different types of hardware;
•
incompatibility between workstations and peripherals supplied at different periods; and
•
hardware rapidly obsolete.
The EPO has produced a useful collection of the different workstations and peripherals currently available. This publication is entitled "Patent Information: Hardware Requirements and Developments". However, centres still face substantial difficulties on this front.