The text, the full text and nothing but the text: Part 1 - Standards for creating textual information in patent documents and general search implications

World Patent Information

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 22-29

  Adams, Stephen ^a  

^a Magister Ltd   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Applicant citations; Disclosure requirements; Documentation standards; Drafting practice; Examiner citations; Full text; Information quality; Patent abstract; Patent claims; Patent title; Review article

Indexed keywords

EID: 72449191724     PISSN: 01722190     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wpi.2009.06.001     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Tenopir C. Searching Harvard business review online...lessons in searching a full text database. Online 9 (1985) 71-78
2. Henzler R.G. Free or controlled vocabularies. Internat Classific 5 (1978) 21-26
3. Calkins M.L. Free text or controlled vocabulary? - a case history step-by-step analysis plus other aspects of search strategy. Database 3 (1980) 53-67
4. Dubois C.P.R. Free text versus controlled vocabulary; a reassessment. Online Rev 11 (1987) 243-253
5. Muddamalle M.R. Natural language versus controlled vocabulary in information retrieval; a case study in soil mechanics. J Am Soc Inf Sci 49 (1998) 881-887
6. Nijhof E. Subject analysis and search strategies - has the searcher become the bottleneck in the search process?. World Patent Inform 29 (2007) 20-25
7. United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office. Manual of Patent Practice. Section 14.04.10 Title of the Invention [July 2008 edition].
8. ibid. Section 14.49 Content of the Application.
9. ibid. Section 14.51 Content of the Application.
10. ibid. Sections 14.173-14.174 Unity of Invention.
11. Patents Rules 2007. Statutory Instrument 2007; No. 3291, Rule 15(2) and (3).
12. Patents Rules 1995. Statutory Instrument 1995; No. 2093, Rule 19(2) and (3).
13. Newton D. The patent abstract - an unsung hero?. World Patent Inform 28 (2006) 1-3
14. Turner P. Abridgements of British patents - the end of an era. World Patent Inform 2 (1980) 73-76
15. United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office. op cit., Section 14.169 Unity of Invention.
16. 37 CFR 1.72(b) and corresponding § 608.01(b), USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, 8th ed.
17. Hill-Rom Company, Inc. vs. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. 209 F.3d 1337, 54 USPQ2d 1437 [Fed. Cir. 2000].
18. In re. Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 678-9, 185. USPQ 152, 154 [CCPA 1975].
19. Patent Information Users' Group discussion list (PIUG-L), posting dated 31 August 2005.
20. European Patent Office, Technical Board of Appeal Decision T77/87, Headnote 2; 16th March 1989.
21. Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (edition in force from 1st July 2008), Rule 8.1(a) and (b).
22. Ashworth W. Producing and using abstracts. In: Batten W.E. (Ed). Handbook of special librarianship and information work. 4th ed. (1975), Aslib, London 124-152
23. Maizell R.E. Abstracting scientific and technical literature (1971), Wiley Interscience, New York
24. Borko H., and Chatman S. Criteria for acceptable abstracts: a survey of abstracters' instructions. Am Document 14 (1963) 149-157
25. World Intellectual Property Organisation. Standard ST.3 Two-letter codes for the representation of states, other entities and organizations (March 2007). Standard ST.6 Numbering of published patent documents (December 2002). Standard ST.10/C Presentation of bibliographic data components (November 2004). Standard ST.14 References cited in patent documents (February 2008). Standard ST.16 Identification of different kinds of patent documents (May 1997). Geneva: WIPO.
26. Official J EPO. 2006:428-9.
27. Cameron RD. A Universal Citation Database as a Catalyst for Reform in Scholarly Communication. First Monday, April 1997;2. Available from: http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/522/443 [accessed 03.07.08].
28. Proper names, Trademarks and Tradenames. Guidelines for examination in the EPO, Part C, Chapter II, Section 4.17. Munich: European Patent Office, December 2007.