world intellectual property organization …€¦ · rev.3 ib 03.11.00 22 amended proposal (french...

.

IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8ORIGINAL: English/françaisDATE: April 26, 2002/

26 avril 2002

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATIONORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA PROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE

GENEVA/GENÈVE

COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS OF THE IPC UNIONCOMITÉ D’EXPERTS DE L’UNION DE L’IPC

IPC REFORM PROJECT FILE/DOSSIER DE PROJET DE RÉFORME DE LA CIB

SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE IPC REVISION POLICY, THE REVISION PROCEDURE AND THECRITERIA FOR ACCEPTING NEW REVISION PROPOSALS IN RELATION TO THE CORE ANDADVANCED LEVELS OF THE REFORMED IPC

SUJET : EXAMEN DES PRINCIPES DE RÉVISION DE LA CIB, DE LA PROCÉDURE DE RÉVISION ETDES CRITÈRES D’ACCEPTATION DE NOUVELLES PROPOSITIONS DE RÉVISIONRELATIVES AU NIVEAU DE BASE ET AU NIVEAU PLUS ÉLEVÉ DE LA CIB APRÈS SARÉFORME

ANNEX/ANNEXE CONTENT/CONTENU

SEE/VOIRR 2/99

ORIGIN/ORIGINE DATE

1 Decision by IPC/CE/29 Décision de l’IPC/CE/29 IB 17.03.00

2 Recommendations by theTrilateral Offices

Recommandations des officesde la coopération trilatérale

EP 14.03.00

3 Decision by IPC/REF/3 andfollow-up

Décision de l’IPC/REF/3 etsuite

Rev.1 IB 05.05.00

4 Circular No. IPC 45 Circulaire no IPC 45 Rev.1 IB 10.08.00

5 Comments Observations Rev.1 BE 15.09.00

6 Comments Observations Rev.1 AT 15.09.00

7 Comments Observations Rev.1 CA 20.09.00

8 Comments Observations Rev.1 EP 26.09.00

9 Comments Observations Rev.1 PT 27.09.00

10 Comments Observations Rev.1 HR 02.10.00

11 Comments Observations Rev.1 RO 02.10.00

12 Comments Observations Rev.1 US 03.10.00

13 Comments Observations Rev.1 TR 03.10.00

14 Comments Observations Rev.2 NL 09.10.00

IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8page 2


SEE/VOIRR 2/99

ORIGIN/ORIGINE DATE

15 Summary and discussion ofcomments (English version)

Résumé et analyse desobservations (version anglaise)

Rev.2 IB 24.10.00

16 Proposal (English version) Proposition (version anglaise) Rev.2 IB 24.10.00

17 Summary and discussion ofcomments (French version)

Résumé et analyse desobservations (versionfrançaise)

Rev.3 IB 24.10.00

18 Proposal (French version) Proposition (version française) Rev.3 IB 24.10.00

19 Comments Observations Rev.3 JP 24.10.00

20 Comments Observations Rev.3 FR 25.10.00

21 Amended proposal(English version)

Proposition modifiée(version anglaise)

Rev.3 IB 03.11.00

22 Amended proposal(French version)

Proposition modifiée(version française)

Rev.3 IB 03.11.00

23 Excerpt of documentIPC/REF/4/4

Extrait du document IPC/REF/4/4

Rev.4 IB 03.11.00

24 Excerpt of documentIPC/CE/30/11

Extrait du documentIPC/CE/30/11

Rev.4 IB 23.02.01



Rev 5 IB 18.05.01

26 Circular No. IPC 70(English version)

Circulaire no IPC 70(version anglaise)

Rev.5 IB 31.08.01

27 Circular No. IPC 70(French version)

Circulaire no IPC 70(version française)

Rev.5 IB 31.08.01

28 Comments Observations Rev.6 AP 12.10.01

29 Comments Observations Rev.6 RO --.10.01

30 Comments Observations Rev.6 BE 12.10.01

31 Comments Observations Rev.6 PT 12.10.01

32 Comments Observations Rev.6 CA 11.10.01

33 Comments Observations Rev.6 NL 17.10.01

34 Comments Observations Rev.6 SK 18.10.01

35 Comments Observations Rev.6 EA 18.10.01

36 Comments Observations Rev.6 SE 19.10.01

IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8page 3


SEE/VOIRR 2/99

ORIGIN/ORIGINE DATE

37 Comments Observations Rev.6 EP 15.10.01



Rev.7 IB 02.11.01

39 Proposal Proposition Rev.7 SE 04.03.02

40 Modified proposal(English version)

Proposition modifiée(version anglaise)

Rev.7 IB 14.03.02

41 Modified proposal(French version)

Proposition modifiée(version française)

Rev.7 IB 14.03.02

42 Comments (re Annex 40) Observations relatives àl’annexe 40

Rev.8 RO 15.04.02


Rev.8 PT 15.04.02


Rev.8 PT 15.04.02


Rev.8 RO 16.04.02


Rev.8 EP 17.04.02


Rev.8 EP 17.04.02

48 Proposal Proposition Rev.8 US 19.04.02


Rev.8 RU 24.04.02


Rev.8 US 22.04.02


Rev.8 US 22.04.02


Rev.8 IE 25.04.02

IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8

ANNEX 42/ANNEXE 42

STATE OFFICE FOR INVENTIONS AND TRADEMARKS Date : April, 15 2002

RO COMMENTS

IPC Reform Tasks 2 and 7

We have analysed the paper produced by I.B. containing modified proposals relating to

IPC reform Tasks 2 and 7.

We favour the modified proposals, appreciating the work done by the

International Bureau.

We have some remarks :

→ We would like to suggest a supplementary point, after point 22, with a wording in

agreement with point 7(e) and 15, for instance : “All changes in structure or creations of new

classification places for new technologies should be reflected in the core level, giving rise to a

core level project”.

→ We wonder how will be considered a revision project referring to subdivisions of core

level groups having a very large file size if the advanced level groups on which the revision is

based contain already a large file size?

→ We propose to move point 28 after point 26 (renumbering). In this way will be reflected

the succession of actions of the revision procedure.

→ We propose to move point 50 after point 48 (renumbering) for the same reasons as above.

→ We suppose that for presenting a revision request a new, more adequate, request form will

be available.

IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8Annex 42/Annexe 42

page 2

We consider that when this task will be discussed during the IPC Reform Session

attention should be given to US Comment for Task 14. This paper contains certain proposals

involving revision procedure and policy.

Mariela Haulica

[Annex 43 follows/L’annexe 43 suit]

IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8

ANNEX 43/ANNEXE 43

PORTUGUESE PATENT OFFICE

IPC Reform – Task 2 April 15th, 2002

Comments on revision policy and revision procedure for the reformed IPC

We agree with the proposal made by the International Bureau relating to revision

policy and procedure.

The proposal considers that, in the core level, revision should be undertaken when

needed, in order to accommodate new technologies or to clarify the text. Obviously,

this revision should be carried out in harmony with revision of the advanced level, to

avoid discrepancies between both levels. On the other hand, revision of the core

level should provide, as proposed, new subdivisions of groups having a very large

size and a high rate of growth. This revision should also reflect revision of the

advanced level. In a general way, revision of both levels of the classification, should

be interdependent. Taking into account the purpose of the core level, we also agree

that indexing schemes should be excluded.

The advanced level should be revised whenever needed, i.e., whenever groups grow

at an excessive rate or a clarification of the text increases the quality of the search.

We also agree that in the advanced level it will be possible to use indexing schemes.

The Portuguese office supports the idea that the revision procedure of the core level

should be initiated by the International Bureau. The revision proposals should be

presented as proposed and evaluated by the IPC Committee of Experts and the

intergovernmental organizations.

We also support the procedures proposed for the revision of the advanced level and

the establishment of an IPC Special Subcommittee which should be responsible for

the evaluation of revision requests and proposals and their approval.


IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8

ANNEX 44/ANNEXE 44

PORTUGUESE PATENT OFFICEIPC Reform – SystematicMaintenance of the IPC April 15th, 2002

Response to the Swedish Proposal

We agree with the SE topics on the systematic maintenance of the IPC. Most of the

aspects cited by SE are true and really need to be updated. The identified general

problems, such as the changes of technical terminology and the lack of harmony on

the changes introduced in the IPC, need to be analysed and probably will lead to

some major reformulations on the IPC.

We think that the identified goals are correct as well as the proposals for their

achievement. The Revision Working Group should be responsible for this work. All

subclasses should be treated, but we agree that the work should start with the

classes that have not recently undergone substantial revision.

We also agree with the creation of a special task force responsible for coordinating

the projects.


IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8

ANNEX 45/ANNEXE 45

STATE OFFICE FOR INVENTIONS AND TRADEMARKS Date : April 16, 2002

IPC Reform - Systematic maintenance of the IPC

RO COMMENTS

to SE draft proposal

Comments weren’t requested at this stage but we want however to express our totally

support to SE draft proposal from 4 March, 2002.

The list of problems and the goals of the maintenance procedure are realistic ones. The

goal of the reform is to make an universal reliable search tool. This can be achieved only by

giving attention to all aspects.

It is clear that as it is at this moment IPC has a lot of drawbacks and consequently has to

be revised step by step from many points of view. By simply splitting it into two levels the degree

of quality will not increase.

As an illustrating flagrant example of overlapping :

A01J 27/00 After treatment of cheese;...

A01J 27/02 . Coating of cheese, e.g. with paraffin

and

A23C 19/00 Cheese; Cheese preparations; Making thereof

A23C 19/14 . Treating cheese........

A23C 19/16 . . Covering the cheese surface, e.g. with paraffin wax

Probably that when the split of the two levels will be done, if enough documents are

classified in A01J 27/02, then this subgroup will remain in the core level and the two dot group

A23C 19/16 will go in the advanced level.

Therefore the all IPC has to be reviewed not only from the point of view of the

technical terminology.

We need an IPC which could serve as an unique and universal search tool being able to

ensure an optimum search quality avoiding as much as possible text search.


page 2

We agree that :

- for the maintenance procedure the WG should be responsible;

- all subclasses should be treated in the form of maintenance projects;

- the project should be started by an invitation to comment.

We don’t think that USPTO proposal to create in the core level subclasses with the title

“Not otherwise provided for” and “miscellaneous” main groups is acceptable. Irrespective of

general or local patentability of some subject matter in the core level should be reflected all

classification places created in the advanced level. As agreed and laid down in the Guide draft

the advanced level will be completely compatible with the core level.

Mariela Haulica


IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8

ANNEX 46/ANNEXE 46

EuropäischesPatentamt

EuropeanPatent Office

Office européendes brevets

GD1 DG1 DG1

Principal Directorate Documentation

Rijswijk, 17 April 2002

Systematic Maintenance of the IPC

Comments were invited on the document submitted by Sweden.

In general we agree with the contents of the document. However we have the followingremarks and suggestions:

List of general problems, part 3. (Deficiencies in the original schemes)It could be added to this list that residual main groups could be systematically introduced insubclasses where the main groups do not clearly exhaust the coverage of the subclass.

We agree with the proposal to let the IPC Revision Working Group be in charge of themaintenance process. Maintenance in the advanced level should of course be carried out incooperation between the Special Subcommittee and the Revision Working Group.

Since the list of tasks for the maintenance procedure is very long and requires a lot ofresources, we wonder if it would be possible to also prioritise the problems to be solved. Ofcourse it would be desirable to work subclass by subclass, as proposed by SE, but someproblems might be urgent, so it could be useful to “repair” them, even if there is no time totreat the whole subclass for all problems.

We strongly support the last point, proposing to make a collection of standard solutions. Themaintenance process can only work if it does not lead to repeating discussions about thesame subject.

Heiko Wongel


IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8

ANNEX 47/ANNEXE 47

EuropäischesPatentamt

EuropeanPatent Office

Office européendes brevets

GD1 DG1 DG1

Principal Directorate Documentation

Rijswijk, 17 April 2002

Revision Policy and Revision Procedure

Comments were invited on the revised document by the International Bureau.

In general we agree with the contents of the document. However we have thefollowing remarks and suggestions:

Paragraph 25:It should be possible to submit revision proposals for the core level throughout theyear. The IB could of course regularly, in form of a reminder, invite offices to submitproposals, but this should not limit offices in making proposals at any time.

Paragraph 44:Since physical meetings could be necessary in some cases, the last sentence shouldleave more flexibility.“The Special Subcommittee should conduct its work preferably usingelectronic communication.”

Paragraphs 49 & 50: We propose to reverse the order of these two paragraphsbecause that would seem to be the chronological order of actions.We also wonder what happens if reclassification of search files does not take placecompletely within a certain time. We should avoid the situation of havingamendments approved but not being able to let them enter into force due toincomplete reclassification. It seems difficult to impose a time limit, because thiscould give problems to offices in situations of high workload. On the other hand itcould be harmful to the IPC if things are waiting for too long. Maybe the SpecialSubcommittee should have the authority to take measures in such a case, e.g.


page 2

introduction of amendments for a certain well-defined set of documents (Of coursesuch a measure would have a lot of consequences, so it is only mentioned here as anexample. It does not mean that we are seriously proposing this measure at this time.)

Heiko Wongel


IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8

ANNEX 48/ANNEXE 48

United States Patent and Trademark Office

IPC Reform Task 14 Date: April 19, 2002

Comments and Examples

1. This paper is intended to supplement our earlier comments on the distribution ofclassification places between the Core & Advanced levels dated February 5, 2002. Inparticular, it concerns our proposal to create additional ‘not otherwise provided for’and ‘miscellaneous’ classification places in the Reformed IPC in view of the problemscaused by existing X-notation practice.

2. In essence, the proposed classification places are intended to entirely replace existingX-notation practice in the IPC. In our opinion, Offices do not follow the existingX-notation practice and forcing them to do so would not be practical. Wherever therequired ‘X’ has been omitted by classifiers when assigning classification symbols, thetitles of the places where these documents have been classified have become mereapproximations of their subject matter and are no longer definitive of their actualscope. The reality of the situation is that almost never has this practice been usedcorrectly by classifiers. It is time to replace it with something that does work.

3. Even if enforced, X-notation practice would not allow subclass and group titles to bedefinitive in scope. The practice requires that patent documents not fitting the titlesand definitions of classification places be obligatorily classified into them when they“come closest to the subject matter” being classified. This is a subjective standard thatcan never be consistently duplicated by several Offices or classifiers. The scope of anyclassification place is determined not just by their titles, but also by the patentdocuments obligatorily classified therein.

4. Furthermore, the X-notation practice does not facilitate the gathering together ofsimilar subject matter over a period of time. The ability to collect similar subjectmatter into particular classification places is needed for a logical systematic approachto creating appropriate additional classification places to cover emerging technology.

5. Therefore, US believes that the creation of the proposed “Not Otherwise ProvidedFor” subclasses is essential if the Reformed IPC is to be a viable search tool. As westated in our previous comments, several distinct functions are served by the creationof these proposed subclasses and groups. Their creation would:


page 2

• Prevents incompatibility problems between the core and advanced levels whennew “interim’ subclasses or main groups are initially added to the advancedlevel. The time period needed for testing, populating, and revising newclassification places will vary significantly between projects based on eachTrilateral Office’s manpower, priority, and money. This method of handlingharmony between the levels maximizes flexibility while maintaining searchefficiency for all Offices.

• Facilitates gathering together and accumulation of particular categories ofX-notation type subject matter in useful locations where Offices can monitorgrowth for future reclassification work planning. Whenever no existingsubclass of a class provides for its residue X-notation type subject matter (i.e.,the subject matter within the scope of the class not specifically provided forelsewhere), its ‘Not Otherwise Provided For’ subclass with its single‘miscellaneous’ main group would be assigned as an obligatory classification.

• Allows the advanced level to provide adequate and clear places for ‘generallynot patentable’ types of subject matter (e.g., computer programs per se) in atimely manner. The advanced level must provide for subject matter even whenit is patentable in only one of the Trilateral Offices. For this type of uniquepatentable subject matter, there is not a general need for ‘quick’ orcomprehensive acceptance of classification places for it in the core level.Therefore, the classification places for unique patentable subject matter can bemaintained only in the advance level for a prolonged time period. Allowingthis diversity between the levels would speed the introduction of classificationplaces for this type of subject matter.

Example of existing ‘Not Otherwise Provided For’ subclasses

6. The proposed alteration to the classification’s basic structure will not cause significantproblems with existing subclasses. In fact, this type of subclass currently exists insome IPC class schemes.

7. For example, subclass G12B is totally exhaustive of all subject matter that could beproper for class G12.

G12 - INSTRUMENT DETAILS

G12B - DETAILS OF INSTRUMENTS, OR COMPARABLE DETAILS OFOTHER APPARATUS, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR

8. Another example is class F41 where its residue subject matter is completely providedfor in subclass F41B.


page 3

F41 - WEAPONS

F41B - WEAPONS FOR PROJECTING MISSILES WITHOUT USE OFEXPLOSIVE OR COMBUSTIBLE PROPELLANT CHARGE; WEAPONSNOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR

9. In similar situations where a class scheme already unquestionably provides for all ofits residue subject matter within an existing subclass, no new “Not Otherwise ProvidedFor” subclass will be needed. In our opinion, all other class schemes will need to addthis type of subclass. We suggest that uniform wording for this residue type ofsubclass be selected that does not vary based upon the class title. USPTOrecommends “Not Otherwise Provided For by Other Subclasses of this Class”. Wealso suggest the use of the same unique letter to designate these subclasses. The letter‘X’ or ‘Z’ are not used by any existing subclasses.

Example of modified class scheme

A21 - BAKING; EDIBLE DOUGHS

A21B - BAKERS' OVENS; MACHINES OR EQUIPMENT FOR BAKING

A21C - MACHINES OR EQUIPMENT FOR MAKING OR PROCESSINGDOUGHS; HANDLING BAKED ARTICLES MADE FROM DOUGH

A21D - TREATMENT, e.g. PRESERVATION, OF FLOUR OR DOUGH, e.g.BY ADDITION OF MATERIALS; BAKING; BAKERY PRODUCTS;PRESERVATION THEREOF

A21X - NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR BY OTHER SUBCLASSES OFTHIS CLASS

Example using residual subclass in Core level with special Advancedlevel subclass

10. ‘Surgical methods’ that do not use novel and unobvious surgical instruments (seeA61B 18/00) are clearly not provided for in a comprehensive manner in subclassA61B, but are within the scope of class A61. This unique subject matter is patentablein the US, but is ‘generally not patentable’ type subject matter in other Offices. Underthe suggested procedure, a subclass specifically providing for this subject matter(A61U) could be created in the advanced level. A concordance could then be usedfrom the advanced level subclass A61U to the core level subclass A61X. Wheneverthe core level finally adopted subclass A61U, the advance level classification datacould be used to populate it and remove its patent documents from the classificationdata of subclass A61X. This procedure allows diversity between the levels while stillensuring their harmony.


page 4

A61X - NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR BY OTHER SUBCLASSESOF THIS CLASS

A61U – SURGICAL METHODS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR


IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8

ANNEX 49/ANNEXE 49

FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY

RU commentsIPC Reform-Task 2 Date: 24.04.2002Re. : Revision policy and revision procedure for the reformed IPC

We take no objections to the proposal on revision policy and revision procedure forthe reformed IPC as well as the most appropriate duration of revision cycles prepared byInternational Bureau. However we feel there is going to appear some particular questionsconcerning different aspects of its implementation to be solved in the future.


IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8

ANNEX 50/ANNEXE 50

United States Patent and Trademark OfficeWIPO Reform Working Group

Topic: Comments on SE Paper“Systematic Maintenance of the IPC”

Date: April 22, 2002

In general the US is in agreement with SE’s proposal for systematic maintenance of theIPC. We sincerely appreciate the thought, effort and care that went into the writing ofthis document.

We do have some comments, and have presented these below in bold and underlining underthe appropriate places in the SE document:

Swedish Patent and Registration OfficeSystematic Maintenance of the IPC March 4th, 2002

DRAFT PROPOSAL(in response to IPC/REF/6/2, paragraphs 19-21)

BackgroundAt IPC/REF/6 Sweden offered to prepare a draft proposal relating to a systematicIPC maintenance procedure, aimed at continuous improvement of the quality of theIPC, separately from the IPC revision procedure. This is our proposal:

The need for systematic maintenance of the IPCThe IPC has mostly been revised in a piecemeal way, when some office has found alocal problem and proposed a local solution. This way of working has meant that littleattention has been given to more general problems.

US supports using the Revision Working Group primarily for solving ‘generalmaintenance problems’.

The current revision procedures have been reasonably successful in taking care ofchanges in technology - when new technology emerges, there is immediately asearch need, and there will be an immediate need for revision. There appears to beno need to change these procedures radically. While the current revision procedureshave in the past not been capable of compensating for the documentation growth,this type of revision will in the future mainly be dealt with within the advanced level.This kind of revision also falls outside the maintenance procedure.


page 2

We do not agree with SE comments that the revision procedure has been successfulin handling emerging new technologies. See US papers on X-notations as analternative procedure.However, there are several more general problems that can not be taken care of inan efficient way with the present revision procedures. One reason is that many of theproblems are, when looked at one by one, too small justify the launching of atraditional revision project. Another reason is that there are no fixed procedures formaking changes of a more general type.

We have tried to make a list of general problems that need attention:

1. Changes of technical terminology.In many fields the technical terminology is different from the one used when the IPCwas created, and there is a need to modernise the language.

We have no problem with the WG modernizing the language of IPC classifications butcare must be taken so that language changes do not change the placement of documents.

2. Changes in the IPCDuring the years, the practices of drafting IPC schemes have developed quite a lot.The guide has also been developed, and is now more specific about situations forwhich there were previously no rules. Many of the old unchanged parts of the IPCare not in line with present thinking. Above all, the reform of the IPC has radicallychanged many aspects of the IPC, and the existing revision procedures will beinadequate for implementing the intentions of the reform.

2a. Changes in IPC practice and terminologyIn the beginning the use of many expressions, for example "specially adaptedfor" and "arrangements for" was not standardised in the way they are now. Thepractice of placing references has changed considerably.

We support standardization of terminology, and replacing inappropriate wordswith standardized words to acurately reflect what is in a classification, so longas the meaning of the title is not changed so as to require reclassification ofpatent documents

2b. The two-level systemIt is agreed that the split between the core and the advanced level will be madein a simple statistic way. This will lead to a need for adjustments. The schemeswere not originally drafted with a split in mind:• In some cases the split will lead to core level schemes that lack symmetry and

logic, and which might for that reason even be more difficult to use than thefull schemes. There will be a need for adjusting the split between the levels.

We don’t understand what ”symmetry and logic” mean in this case.Perhaps SE could provide an example or two of this problem


page 3

• In some cases schemes have been drafted with a shallow hierarchy, that isnot suitable for separating in two levels. In such cases the situation might beimproved by introducing new hierarchical levels.

We do not favor changing scheme hierarchy because of the core andadvanced level split. This may cause more problems than it solves due tomovement of the placement of documents.

• In many cases examples and references will need to be modified andmoved. The problem of how to reflect in the core level references that pointbetween different advanced level places has not been addressed at all.

Tests were conducted that indicated that it takes a lot of time to “fix”the references. However, this is a necessary exercise that needs to bedone before 2005!

2c. The electronic layerThe informative layer will be almost empty when the reformed IPC is launched.The filling of the informative layer will require much work, for example:• Moving informative references and notes• Adding definitions and illustrations.

US supports using the Revision Working Group for moving informativereferences and adding definitions and illustrations.

2d. New definition of coverage - "inclusiveness"?If the principle of "inclusiveness" is accepted there will be a big need foradapting the schemes, since this principle will lead to a lot of new overlaps.

The official recognition of ‘inclusiveness’ will cause almost no need toreorganize schemes. Any overlap problems are covered by the ‘what’ and‘where’ to classify rules.

2e. Standardised sequenceThe standardised sequence of groups is another general aspect of thereformed IPC that will require a lot of work for its implementation.

We agree with SE comments that standardized sequence of subclassschemes should be handled by WG.

3. Deficiencies in the original schemesOur predecessors have sometimes done things in ways that are less than perfect:• Non-standardised unique solutions in local areas• Overly limited terminology - in many cases group titles are too narrow for the

technology they cover and have little growth potential• Overlaps and missing references. Present practice is much stricter when it comes

to the amount of overlap that can be accepted without references.


page 4

• Bad hierarchy and misplaced groups. In many parts residual subgroups are usedwhen a hierarchically superior group would have been clearer (and more suitableto a two-level IPC). In some places hierarchy is not used when it should be.

This concept is very unclear, but it may be a problem.

• Scope-affecting class titles, subsection titles and guide headings.

We agree that corrections are needed to class titles, subsection titles, and guide headingswhen they are intended to impact the scope of subclasses or main groups. Removing orduplicating this information and shifting it to subclass and main group titles ordefinitions should be one of the foremost activities of the WG.

What should be the goals of the maintenance procedure?• To achieve harmonisation, updating, and clarifications to the schemes without

necessitating intellectual reclassification. It will of course be impossible toavoid reclassification in all cases - if you for example have an unclear terminologyand improve it in order to clarify a borderline, it will by necessity mean that somedocuments near that borderline need to have their classification reconsidered.

This type of change by the WG should require agreement by the Offices that have tomove the documents.

• To move informative material to the informative layer.• To finalise the two-level IPC• To implement the standardised sequence of groups

How should the maintenance procedure work?• Since the work relates to both the core level and the advanced level, the Revision

Working Group should be responsible for the work.

• As a long-term goal, all subclasses should be treated. When selecting projects,priority should be given to active subclasses and subclasses that have notrecently undergone substantial revision.

• Work should be done in the form of maintenance projects, normally dealing with asubclass at a time. Each project should have a rapporteur.

• The projects could either be started by a rapporteur proposal or (perhapspreferably) by an invitation to comment on changes that need to be made.

Communication should be mainly electronic, in a way similar to the definitionsprojects. The Revision Working Group should ideally only be presented with a finalproposal from the rapporteur, and should only discuss projects in detail when it hasnot been possible solve differences of opinion.


page 5

• A special task force should be responsible for coordinating the projects and as faras possible settle matters of principle that might turn up and, if necessary,indicate them to the Committee of Experts.

At least in the beginning there will be a need for decisions on which will be thepreferred standard solutions. The task force should have as one of its tasks to makea collection of preferred standard solutions. This collection could serve as a basis fora handbook on how IPC schemes should be drafted and organised.Caution should be exercised. Some of these procedures may frequently require testingof concepts over a long period of time.

Anders Bruun


IPC/ R 2/99 Rev.8

ANNEX 51/ANNEXE 51

United States Patent and Trademark OfficeWIPO Reform Working Group

Topic: Comments on “Revision Policy andRevision Procedure for the ReformedIPC”

Date: April 22, 2002

1. The US has carefully considered the International Bureau’s most recent proposal on revisionpolicy and revision procedure for the reformed IPC. In general, we agree with documentcontents, but have several concerns, which we have commented on below.

2. Paragraph 15 states that the revision of the core level should be undertaken when needed inorder to accommodate new technologies or to increase the quality of the IPC by clarifying itstext. If this is so, it would seem that revision proposals should be submitted throughout theyear rather that only once a year as stated in paragraph 25 (“revision procedure should beinitiated by the International Bureau which should once a year invite members of the IPCCommittee of Experts…”). The submitted projects could then be reviewed prior to the CEmeeting by the IPC Special Subcommittee (established by the CE for supervision of theadvanced level revision). This would allow the Subcommittee adequate time to estimate costand potential resources available and give a recommendation to the CE concerning eachsubmitted project proposal.

3. Paragraph 39 under Advanced level, states that if proposed amendments in the advanced levelrequire modification of the core level, they should be treated in accordance with the revisionprocedure for the core level. It is unclear how this will work. If the TO’s are working quicklyto provide a classification place for certain subject matter and it is discovered a change needsto be made at the core level, does this mean the proposal must go to the CE for approval?This would certainly slow the process down.

4. US suggests moving paragraph 50 prior to paragraph 49 to be in the properchronological sequence.

5. As a side note, US has proposed a way to prevent compatibility problems between core andadvance levels by using “Not Otherwise Provided For” subclasses and Miscellaneous maingroups to collect X-notation type subject matter (e.g., emerging technologies) which don’thave proper classification places in the IPC (See US Paper on IPC Task 14 dated March 19,2002). These subclasses and groups can be temporarily used at the core level, whereas at theadvanced level subject matter from these subclasses and groups may be separated into moreprecise main groups or subgroups. A concordance can be set up between the core level “nototherwise provided for” or “miscellaneous” groups and the more precise advanced levelgroups. If it is decided the advanced level groups should be moved to the core level, theconversion would be a simple matter of just changing classification symbols.


IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8

ANNEX 52/ANNEXE 52

From: Michael LydonTo: ad hoc IPC Reform Working GroupDate: 25 April 2002Re: Revision Policy and Procedure for the Reformed IPC

The Irish Office wishes to reiterate its support for the two-level structure of the

reformed IPC as described in the background to the proposal from the

International Bureau. Under the current IPC it is very difficult for Offices such as

ourselves with a small number of patent examination staff to classify patent

documents in a consistent manner across the more than 70,000 groups of the

complete classification. We believe that the introduction of the core level will

greatly improve this situation and will, as a result, facilitate the searching of our

national patent document collection.

With reference to the details of the proposal we wish to make the following

brief comments:-

(i) One aspect of the revision procedure for the core level as outlined in

paragraph 25 indicates that the IB should invite revision proposals once

a year. Our view is that such proposals could be submitted at any time

so that, subject to the steps outlined in paragraphs 27 to 29, the

Revision Working Group at its subsequent meeting could then consider

these proposals.

Irish Patents Office


page 2

(ii) The proposal at the end of paragraph 46 is too prescriptive and it might bebetter expressed as “The Special Subcommittee should conduct its workwhenever possible using electronic communication.”

[End of Annex 52 and of document/ Fin de l’annexe 52 et du document]

IPC/R 2/99 Rev.8ANNEX 42/ANNEXE 42ANNEX 43/ANNEXE 43ANNEX 44/ANNEXE 44ANNEX 45/ANNEXE 45ANNEX 46/ANNEXE 46ANNEX 47/ANNEXE 47ANNEX 48/ANNEXE 48ANNEX 49/ANNEXE 49ANNEX 50/ANNEXE 50ANNEX 51/ANNEXE 51ANNEX 52/ANNEXE 52

world intellectual property organization …€¦ · rev.3 ib 03.11.00 22 amended proposal (french...

Documents