slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
IP5 Foundation Projects and the User Community PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
IP5 Foundation Projects and the User Community

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 17

IP5 Foundation Projects and the User Community - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 114 Views
  • Uploaded on

IP5 Foundation Projects and the User Community. Michael Brunner, Secretary General AIPPI. Introduction. Progress from 2007 to 2010 2007 the start 2008 10 Foundation Projects agreed 2009 Working Groups formed 2010 Approved the resources requirements

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'IP5 Foundation Projects and the User Community' - anastacia


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

IP5 Foundation Projects and the User Community

Michael Brunner, Secretary General AIPPI

introduction
Introduction
  • Progress from 2007 to 2010
    • 2007 the start
    • 2008 10 Foundation Projects agreed
    • 2009 Working Groups formed
    • 2010 Approved the resources requirements
    • 2010 Invited acceleration proposals from the Working Groups
    • 2010 Continuing implementation of 10 Foundation Projects
    • 2010 Preparing for Fourth IP5 Heads of Office meeting to be held in 2011
  • Find out more at www.fiveipoffices.org
10 foundation projects
10 Foundation Projects
  • Common Documentation Database
  • Common Hybrid Classification
  • Common Access to Search and Examination Results
  • Common Application Format
  • Common Training Policy
  • Mutual Machine Translation
  • Common Examination Practice Rules and Quality Management
  • Common Statistical Parameter System for Examination
  • Common Approach to Sharing and Documenting Search Strategies
  • Common Search and Examination Support Tools
from a user s perspective
From a user’s Perspective
  • How does this impact users?
  • What do we need to see?
  • What do we know?
  • What involvement do we have?
specific foundation projects
Specific Foundation Projects
  • Common Documentation Database
    • Compiling a resource matrix
    • Including already shared resources to allow gaps to be identified
    • Attempting to get largest possible coverage
      • Exchange agreements
      • Relevancy ranking
      • Minimum PCT requirements
      • Availability of date in English & IP5 languages
      • Removing barriers to retrieval of documents
    • Where does the user fit in?
common hybrid classification
Common Hybrid Classification
  • Absolutely critical in avoiding duplication and getting consistency
  • Who is being consulted outside the IP5?
common access to search and examination results
Common Access to Search and Examination Results
  • The ‘one portal’ concept
    • Vital to avoid duplication and improve quality
    • Allows global work sharing

But

    • Only investigating possible future access by the public
  • Priority document exchange
    • No mention of legal issues
    • What will be the take-up if the present WIPO system doesn’t seem to have attracted many offices?
common application format
Common Application Format
  • The ‘holy grail’ of harmonisers?
  • Requires law changes, so how long to implement?
  • Any consultation with users?
common training policy
Common Training Policy
  • “Fostering mutual benchmarking of best practices”
  • Will this really achieve minimisation of ‘non systematic discrepancies?
  • What chance user involvement here?
mutual machine translation
Mutual Machine Translation
  • “The project aims to improve the quality of machine translation”
  • Some of the best brains in the world have worked and are working on this outside the IP5; so is it worth developing a parallel line of research?
common examination practice rules and quality management
Common Examination Practice Rules and Quality Management
  • Probably vital to ensure consistency
  • Is it realistic to expect results in the near term?
common statistical parameter system for examination
Common Statistical Parameter System for Examination
  • Internal to IPOs and little role for users
common approach to sharing and documenting search strategies
Common Approach to Sharing and Documenting Search Strategies
  • Will aid understanding of other IPOs’ search strategies
  • Should these be made available to the public?
common search and examination support tools
Common Search and Examination Support Tools
  • A common search environment?
  • Without high quality searches patents are of doubtful validty
    • This brings the system into disrepute
  • Contains a proposal for 24/7 access by IPO examiners and customers!
  • Arguably the most important aspect of the IP5 projects but the only one with seemingly a real commitment to helping users directly
summary
Summary
  • How does this impact users?
    • Mostly only in the long term unless the IP5 seeks to involve users in its projects. Are they? Will they?
  • What do we need to see?
    • Real dialogue between the IP5 and users
  • What do we know?
    • Very little so far other than what is reported on the website.
    • Why not use the publicity offices of the IP5 to get more information to user?
  • What involvement do we have?
    • Very little so far. Why? Are the IP5 frightened of its users? Have they forgotten that we are the customers?
user involvement
User involvement
  • Too many law and rule changes without consulting the real users risks alienating them and (worse) can lead to a serious loss of trust in IPOs’ abilities to improve the chronic problems they face.
    • E.g. USPTO proposed rule changes litigated – then dropped
    • E.g. EPO rule changes on divisionals causing chaos and arguably greater initial backlogs
  • IPOs have to avoid creating an ‘us’ and ‘them’ divide and the best way is to consult properly. IP5 should avoid ‘surveys’ from outside bodies, but get down to the grass root users and be seen to listen.
  • Do poachers make good gamekeepers? Very probably!
  • Good communication is everything!
enough said
Enough said!

Thank you for your patience