- Email: [email protected]
Online patent information
World Patent Information, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 239-240, 1983 Pergamon International Information Corp Printed in Great Britain.
ONLINE Patent Information Patents online: where do we stand?
Elsewhere in this issue of World Patent Znformntion, Dr. H. Evers expresses in a letter to the editor his concern about the shortcomings of existing patent databases. I share much of that concern - certainly I have written and spoken frequently about improvements needed in those databases. (See, for example, the last ofthese columns, or the article referred to by Dr. Evers.) Nevertheless, I believe that the current capabilities of online patent databases are generally quite impressive, and are improving at a rapid pace. A comparison of today’s situation with the way things stood in 1978 will show quickly that great strides have been made. (I) And if we look back ten years, to the dawn of the online era, we can see just how far we have come. I know of many further improvements that are almost upon us - some of them will have been introduced by the time you read this - and I look forward to additional advances that I haven’t heard of as yet. The interested reader may wish to consult my review of the state of the art vintage 1981 (already partly outdated, of course).‘2’ Meanwhile, in the limited space we have here, let’s look at what we do have available today. Derwent’s WPI is still probably the most important general purpose patent information source available. It has covered all patents in the major industrialized countries for nearly ten years now (albeit with significant omissions of non-chemical patents from Japan), and coverage in chemical fields goes back considerably farther, in some cases as much as twenty years. Bibliographic retrieval is generally especially patent family quite strong, information, including in many cases family information on non-convention patents. Inventor searches are less successfully handled, since information on inventors exists in the file only since 1978. and then only when the basic patent in a family lists the inventors. Subject searching capabilities vary considerably, being strongest in the central chemical and polymer sections, weakest in non-chemical areas. International patent class is searchable for all but the oldest references in the file, and U.S. patent classes may be used as searching parameters by Crossfile searching with Derwent’s USCLASS and U.S. Patent files. Major recent advances in subject searchability include the strengthening of the coding system for chemical patents in 1981. and the inclusion of searchable abstracts since 1981. Derwent is presently engaged in a project which will add searchable abstracts for the backfile. which will further improve subject searchins capabilities.
An important Derwent feature is the availability to subscribers of manual searching files for chemicallv-related sections. These complement the computer searching capabilities, and are invaluable for some searches. Allied to WPI is Derwent’s set of files of U.S. patents going back to August, 1970. These files differ from most other files of U.S. patents in that they provide full searchability of all of the claims, a feature that is exceedingly useful today, and will become even more important once the file contains the full 17 years’ worth of patents needed for a U.S. infringement search. Similar files for granted patents in other countries could well be an attractive addition to the field. There are gaps in the file for the 1970-74 period, but these should be filled shortly - hopefully before this column reaches print. Yet another valuable feature of the Derwent fami,ly of tiles is their citation searchability, m the U.S. patent files and, for EP and PCT publications, in WPI. While other files include some of these features, Derwent and the SDC host have the important capability of being able to combine direct search and citation search information in WPI and the U.S. files through SDC’s Crossfile software, a subject I’ve written about in these pages. For straight bibliographic searching and the most complete information on convention patent families, we have the INPADOC file, available in two versions: direct from INPADOC in Vienna, and through Pergamon InfoLine. For manv countries IgPADOC data goes back ti 1968. It has little subject searching capability - just IPC in the Vienna file, IPC plus titles in the Pergamon file - so that it is of limited value for subject-based searches. Patent family data in INPADOC are relatively expensive, and many less demanding family searches can be done satisfactorily on the less expensive WPI, but for the most complete data, and especially for second and third publications not covered by Derwent for a number of countries, INPADOC is the clear choice. Pergamon also offers Patsearch, a file of U.S. patents since 1971, as well as all PCT publications. Subject searching capabilities are limited to titles, patent classification. and author abstracts. Patsearch can be used for citation searching, for both U.S. and PCT documents. Allied with Patsearch is Video Patsearch, a pioneering file which retrieves pictorial information from patents. The ability to scan figures should be of considerable help in some areas, especially in the electrical and mechanical arts. We can anticipate more advances in the future with regard to the storing and retrieval of graphic material. But of course the actual retrieval -at least today-is still based on words and classification: the images merely aid in evaluating what has been retrieved. IFI/Plenum produces a series of files, all limited to U.S. patents. For chemical parents coverage eitends all the way back to 1950. and this mcludes deep-indexing In the CLAIMS-limterm and CLAIMS-CDB
files, with the latter having the more sophisticated indexing system for chemical structures. The indexing for the early years of the file leaves something to be desired, but is considerably improved for the 1964-71 period, with further improvements from 1972 onward. Besides this indexing the title and main claim are searchable back to 1950, giving a very substantial search power to a file that contains nearly 35 years’ worth of natents. Non-chemical patents are not indexed, but are contained in the file since 1963. The representative claims and abstracts are searchable for the more recent non-chemical patents, and searchable representative claims will soon be added for them back through 1965. It should be noted that CLAIMS-CDB is a limited access file, available only to subscribers, with a substantial subscription price. Also available from IFI/Plenum are the CLAIMS-Citation files, a unique resource allowing the searching of all examiners’ citations on U.S. natents back to 1947. There are several fries which allow citation searching since 1971, but CLAIMSCitation” is the only one covering the 1947-70 period, albeit at a relatively high cost. Chemical Abstracts is not a patent file per se. but it contains a great deal of information on chemical patents. generally extremelv well indexed. Its focus has historically been on the actual chemistry performed in a patent, rather than the patent claims, but in recent years CA has become more sensitive to patent information needs, broadening its country coverage and extending abstracting and Indexing to much claimed material which may not have been demonstrated in patent examples. The American Petroleum Institute’s APIPAT file uses a custom-designed indexing system for patents on petroleum refining. petrochemicals, and related topics. Its time range goes back to 1964. and its performance is generally quite strong within its chosen area. The newest major addition to the battery 01. patent files is Lexpat from Mead Data Central, a file that makes searchable the full text of U.S. uatents since 1975. Full text search offers thk prospect of being able to locate information buried withln patent specification, but I have remained skeptical about the value of such a file. which I would expect to produce high levels of noise in searching. It remains to be seen how useful Lexpat will be. There are many other online files rhar include substantial amounts of parent information; it would be lmposslble to tr\ to cover all of them here. BRS otfer.s Patdata. a U.S. parent file \omewhar similar to Patsearch. but coverlns only rhc period from 1975 onward. I won’r attempl to deal with the INPI files. ~lrh which i have onl? a limited acquaintance. But ! have listed quite a fe\\ databases. each with demonstrable strengths. each uirh certain weaknesses.
240
chemical patents than for those in other arts. Even in chemical areas a thorough search almost invariably requires a hybrid strategy, using more than one online file and often combining this with some sort of manual search. The existence of chemical indexing systems does not imply that all of the problems have been solved; I know of no system that would not benefit from some improvements. Nevertheless, my own experience is that the results of this hybrid approach are generally quite satisfactory - and I doubt that I could find anyone who would maintain that traditional hand searching techniques have been ideal, or that the situation for hand searching is improving as the body of published patents continues to grow. Dr. Evers is concerned that the online patent files do not go all the way back in time, and I suspect that the likelihood of our ever adding much older material to the existing files is in the range of small to vanishing. The costs would be great, and
ONLINE
Patent
Information
the prospect ot economic viability correspondingly small. But we do have a substantial platform of information capability for a period of lo- 15 years, more in some areas, and there certainly are prospects for building further on that platform in the future. By all means we need further studies and presentations documenting the strengths and weaknesses of our current tiles, and offering ideas on how they might be improved. This is a mission that I’ve assumed for a number of years, certainly not alone but with less company than I might have expected; I welcome other participants to the fray. One thing is certain: database enhancements are frequently expensive. It is not my function to be a marketing representative for any of the patent information systems, but I do know that only those advances will take place which are economically viable. Use and support of existing databases by individuals and corporations, by presti-
gious organizations, especially by national and international intellectual property organizations - will increase the chances for needed improvements. At the risk of saying the obvious, let me underline the importance of such support in the nonchemical areas, where existing capabilities are least developed. We stand today, then, in not such a bad position. I have every confidence that the position will continue to improve in the years to come. Stuart M. Kaback Exxon
Research and Engineering Co. Linden, NJO7036, U.S.A.
References
(1) (2)
S. M. Kaback, Retrieving patent information online. ONLINE 2 (1) 16-25; 1978. S. M. Kaback, What’s new in patent information. Science and Technology Libraries
2 (2), 33-54,
1981.
ONLINE Patent Information Patents online: where do we stand?
Elsewhere in this issue of World Patent Znformntion, Dr. H. Evers expresses in a letter to the editor his concern about the shortcomings of existing patent databases. I share much of that concern - certainly I have written and spoken frequently about improvements needed in those databases. (See, for example, the last ofthese columns, or the article referred to by Dr. Evers.) Nevertheless, I believe that the current capabilities of online patent databases are generally quite impressive, and are improving at a rapid pace. A comparison of today’s situation with the way things stood in 1978 will show quickly that great strides have been made. (I) And if we look back ten years, to the dawn of the online era, we can see just how far we have come. I know of many further improvements that are almost upon us - some of them will have been introduced by the time you read this - and I look forward to additional advances that I haven’t heard of as yet. The interested reader may wish to consult my review of the state of the art vintage 1981 (already partly outdated, of course).‘2’ Meanwhile, in the limited space we have here, let’s look at what we do have available today. Derwent’s WPI is still probably the most important general purpose patent information source available. It has covered all patents in the major industrialized countries for nearly ten years now (albeit with significant omissions of non-chemical patents from Japan), and coverage in chemical fields goes back considerably farther, in some cases as much as twenty years. Bibliographic retrieval is generally especially patent family quite strong, information, including in many cases family information on non-convention patents. Inventor searches are less successfully handled, since information on inventors exists in the file only since 1978. and then only when the basic patent in a family lists the inventors. Subject searching capabilities vary considerably, being strongest in the central chemical and polymer sections, weakest in non-chemical areas. International patent class is searchable for all but the oldest references in the file, and U.S. patent classes may be used as searching parameters by Crossfile searching with Derwent’s USCLASS and U.S. Patent files. Major recent advances in subject searchability include the strengthening of the coding system for chemical patents in 1981. and the inclusion of searchable abstracts since 1981. Derwent is presently engaged in a project which will add searchable abstracts for the backfile. which will further improve subject searchins capabilities.
An important Derwent feature is the availability to subscribers of manual searching files for chemicallv-related sections. These complement the computer searching capabilities, and are invaluable for some searches. Allied to WPI is Derwent’s set of files of U.S. patents going back to August, 1970. These files differ from most other files of U.S. patents in that they provide full searchability of all of the claims, a feature that is exceedingly useful today, and will become even more important once the file contains the full 17 years’ worth of patents needed for a U.S. infringement search. Similar files for granted patents in other countries could well be an attractive addition to the field. There are gaps in the file for the 1970-74 period, but these should be filled shortly - hopefully before this column reaches print. Yet another valuable feature of the Derwent fami,ly of tiles is their citation searchability, m the U.S. patent files and, for EP and PCT publications, in WPI. While other files include some of these features, Derwent and the SDC host have the important capability of being able to combine direct search and citation search information in WPI and the U.S. files through SDC’s Crossfile software, a subject I’ve written about in these pages. For straight bibliographic searching and the most complete information on convention patent families, we have the INPADOC file, available in two versions: direct from INPADOC in Vienna, and through Pergamon InfoLine. For manv countries IgPADOC data goes back ti 1968. It has little subject searching capability - just IPC in the Vienna file, IPC plus titles in the Pergamon file - so that it is of limited value for subject-based searches. Patent family data in INPADOC are relatively expensive, and many less demanding family searches can be done satisfactorily on the less expensive WPI, but for the most complete data, and especially for second and third publications not covered by Derwent for a number of countries, INPADOC is the clear choice. Pergamon also offers Patsearch, a file of U.S. patents since 1971, as well as all PCT publications. Subject searching capabilities are limited to titles, patent classification. and author abstracts. Patsearch can be used for citation searching, for both U.S. and PCT documents. Allied with Patsearch is Video Patsearch, a pioneering file which retrieves pictorial information from patents. The ability to scan figures should be of considerable help in some areas, especially in the electrical and mechanical arts. We can anticipate more advances in the future with regard to the storing and retrieval of graphic material. But of course the actual retrieval -at least today-is still based on words and classification: the images merely aid in evaluating what has been retrieved. IFI/Plenum produces a series of files, all limited to U.S. patents. For chemical parents coverage eitends all the way back to 1950. and this mcludes deep-indexing In the CLAIMS-limterm and CLAIMS-CDB
files, with the latter having the more sophisticated indexing system for chemical structures. The indexing for the early years of the file leaves something to be desired, but is considerably improved for the 1964-71 period, with further improvements from 1972 onward. Besides this indexing the title and main claim are searchable back to 1950, giving a very substantial search power to a file that contains nearly 35 years’ worth of natents. Non-chemical patents are not indexed, but are contained in the file since 1963. The representative claims and abstracts are searchable for the more recent non-chemical patents, and searchable representative claims will soon be added for them back through 1965. It should be noted that CLAIMS-CDB is a limited access file, available only to subscribers, with a substantial subscription price. Also available from IFI/Plenum are the CLAIMS-Citation files, a unique resource allowing the searching of all examiners’ citations on U.S. natents back to 1947. There are several fries which allow citation searching since 1971, but CLAIMSCitation” is the only one covering the 1947-70 period, albeit at a relatively high cost. Chemical Abstracts is not a patent file per se. but it contains a great deal of information on chemical patents. generally extremelv well indexed. Its focus has historically been on the actual chemistry performed in a patent, rather than the patent claims, but in recent years CA has become more sensitive to patent information needs, broadening its country coverage and extending abstracting and Indexing to much claimed material which may not have been demonstrated in patent examples. The American Petroleum Institute’s APIPAT file uses a custom-designed indexing system for patents on petroleum refining. petrochemicals, and related topics. Its time range goes back to 1964. and its performance is generally quite strong within its chosen area. The newest major addition to the battery 01. patent files is Lexpat from Mead Data Central, a file that makes searchable the full text of U.S. uatents since 1975. Full text search offers thk prospect of being able to locate information buried withln patent specification, but I have remained skeptical about the value of such a file. which I would expect to produce high levels of noise in searching. It remains to be seen how useful Lexpat will be. There are many other online files rhar include substantial amounts of parent information; it would be lmposslble to tr\ to cover all of them here. BRS otfer.s Patdata. a U.S. parent file \omewhar similar to Patsearch. but coverlns only rhc period from 1975 onward. I won’r attempl to deal with the INPI files. ~lrh which i have onl? a limited acquaintance. But ! have listed quite a fe\\ databases. each with demonstrable strengths. each uirh certain weaknesses.
240
chemical patents than for those in other arts. Even in chemical areas a thorough search almost invariably requires a hybrid strategy, using more than one online file and often combining this with some sort of manual search. The existence of chemical indexing systems does not imply that all of the problems have been solved; I know of no system that would not benefit from some improvements. Nevertheless, my own experience is that the results of this hybrid approach are generally quite satisfactory - and I doubt that I could find anyone who would maintain that traditional hand searching techniques have been ideal, or that the situation for hand searching is improving as the body of published patents continues to grow. Dr. Evers is concerned that the online patent files do not go all the way back in time, and I suspect that the likelihood of our ever adding much older material to the existing files is in the range of small to vanishing. The costs would be great, and
ONLINE
Patent
Information
the prospect ot economic viability correspondingly small. But we do have a substantial platform of information capability for a period of lo- 15 years, more in some areas, and there certainly are prospects for building further on that platform in the future. By all means we need further studies and presentations documenting the strengths and weaknesses of our current tiles, and offering ideas on how they might be improved. This is a mission that I’ve assumed for a number of years, certainly not alone but with less company than I might have expected; I welcome other participants to the fray. One thing is certain: database enhancements are frequently expensive. It is not my function to be a marketing representative for any of the patent information systems, but I do know that only those advances will take place which are economically viable. Use and support of existing databases by individuals and corporations, by presti-
gious organizations, especially by national and international intellectual property organizations - will increase the chances for needed improvements. At the risk of saying the obvious, let me underline the importance of such support in the nonchemical areas, where existing capabilities are least developed. We stand today, then, in not such a bad position. I have every confidence that the position will continue to improve in the years to come. Stuart M. Kaback Exxon
Research and Engineering Co. Linden, NJO7036, U.S.A.
References
(1) (2)
S. M. Kaback, Retrieving patent information online. ONLINE 2 (1) 16-25; 1978. S. M. Kaback, What’s new in patent information. Science and Technology Libraries
2 (2), 33-54,
1981.