160 likes | 303 Views
IPC – a “sound” tool for Environmentally Sound Technologies? . Outline of IPC – EST relations. 1994: UNFCCC UNFCCC - EST technology inventory: http://unfccc.int/ttclear/jsp/Technology.jsp 2008: GB initial proposal in project WG020 (> project C456):
E N D
IPC – a “sound” tool for Environmentally Sound Technologies?
Outline of IPC – EST relations • 1994: UNFCCC • UNFCCC - EST technology inventory: • http://unfccc.int/ttclear/jsp/Technology.jsp • 2008: GB initial proposal in project WG020 (> project C456): • to establish IPC indexing scheme based on UNFCCC inventory, to assist: • Access to EST • Technology transfer • Statistical analysis, monitoring EST • Identify technology trends • "Patent landscapes"
Outline of IPC – EST relation • IPC WG favors "Catchword Index" type inventory of EST related IPC symbols • EP also proposes indexing scheme for alleged EST effects • EP has also cooperation with UNEP,.. • EP has internal EST project (see later slides)
Criticism • What is "environmentally sound" ? • " - protect the environment, • - are less polluting, • - use all resources in a more sustainable manner, • - recycle more of their wastes and products, and • - handle residual wastes in a more acceptable manner • than the technologies for which they were substitutes." • " - mitigate climate change • - support adaptation to climate change"
Criticism • IPC describes technical concepts and should not assess/describe alleged effects/benefits • Comparative effects ("less polluting") are vague and may change with time • Patent examination does not verify claimed benefits, only assesses novelty and inventive step, • i.e. the grant of a patent does not assure that the claimed benefits are achieved ! • Classification based on such (subjective) judgments may lead to wrong conclusions, interpretation as a quality seal!
Criticism • No need for new indexing scheme • IPC comprises places for all relevant technical subject matter in regular places • If not yet: create new additional regular places for new emerging technology • Moreover: if new EST technology emerges, one should create regular IPC places for that anyway and not only indexing places ! • Reclassification problem for backfile, e.g. workload • Limited use if applied only to frontfile
Recall = = 1 Precision = = 1 # retrieved relevant documents # relevant retrieved documents # existing relevant documents # retrieved documents What to achieve in search ? Optimum: All documents pertaining to specific technical area (concept) are found < > Efficiency: no irrelevant documents
Language independent Terminology / ”jargon” independent Concept search Standardized application to documents by experts Available for (old) patent documents where no full text of claims / description is available Why classification? ► Advantages of using IPC in comparison to only term / keyword searching:
Regular <> Indexing symbols Regular IPC symbols: - describe "concept", i.e. specific subject matter - usually defined by concatenated titles of several hierarchical levels, - i.e. by aggregations of several "keywords" Indexing IPC symbols: - describe one additional aspect by one symbol - like adding one additional keyword
EPO approach • New "indexing" entries, to be developed step by step for different areas of EST; similar to EPO nanotech scheme • Soon for "energy generation", "energy storage", e.g. Y02E 10/00 Energy generation through renewable energy sources • Based on existing EPO internal classification tools: - ECLA codes - ICO codes - Controlled Keywords • I.e. new codes = "Queries" composed of existing ECLA, ICO, CK • Y02E 10/00 = f(ECLA, ICO, CK)
EPO approach • new EST codes: • Yabc xx/yy = f(ECLA, IKO, CK) • e.g. Yabc xx/yy = • ('ECLA1' OR 'ECLA2' OR 'ECLA3') AND 'ICO1' AND 'CK1' • Is not true indexing scheme, rather represents concepts
EPO approach • New codes are only coding (re)combinations of existing ones; • I.e. there will be no new codes describing aspects not yet covered by existing codes • Applied automatically to ECLA classified backfile via relation to existing codes • Application to frontfile: Automatic similar to backfile. Also intellectually in individual cases.
EPO approach • Utility for other users outside EPO ? • Because of use of ECLA, ICO, CK, the algorithms behind each new code are not applicable in databases containing only IPC • Is, however, interesting analysis of EST concepts by using concepts defined by queries (ECLA, IKO, CK) • Would allow to define similar or refined standardized EST concepts using only IPC and keywords (language limitation) • But: • Does this improve examiner's search efficiency ? Or, • Does it simply add stable/refined concepts for statisticians ?
C456 approach • WG proposal: • Inventory based on existing IPC codes relevant to EST • as part of Catch Word Index • To be developed if approval by CE • Based on UNFCCC inventory ? • Broader than that ? • As compatible as possible with that ? • Seek cooperation in order to improve UNFCCC inventory?
Last but not least • Again: Does one need additional true indexing scheme for alleged effects? • e.g. "reduced energy consumption" • Remember: IPC knows indexing for alleged therapeutic effects, which are never verified but simply alleged by inventor