WIPO

IPC/WG/11/7 ORIGINAL: English DATE: June 24, 2004

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION
GENEVA

SPECIAL UNION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL PATENT CLASSIFICATION
(IPC UNION)

IPC REVISION WORKING GROUP

Eleventh Session
Geneva, June 14 to 24, 2004

INTRODUCTION

1. The IPC Revision Working Group (hereinafter referred to as "the Working Group") held its eleventh session in Geneva from June 14 to 24, 2004. The following members of the Working Group were represented at the session: Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America, African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), African Regional Industrial Property Organization (ARIPO), European Patent Office (EPO) (23). Ukraine was present as an observer. The list of participants appears as Annex A to this report.

2. The session was opened by Mr. M. Makarov, Deputy Director, Technology Retrieval Systems Service, Office of the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty), WIPO, who welcomed the participants on behalf of the Director General.

OFFICERS

3. The Working Group unanimously elected Mr. M. Price (United Kingdom) as Chair and Miss E. López Ávila (Mexico) as Vice-Chair for 2004.

4. Mr. A. Farassopoulos (WIPO) acted as Secretary of the session.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

5. The Working Group unanimously adopted the agenda, which appears as Annex B to this report.

CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS

6. As decided by the Governing Bodies of WIPO at their tenth series of meetings held from September 24 to October 2, 1979 (see document AB/X/32, paragraphs 51 and 52), the report of this session reflects only the conclusions of the Working Group (decisions, recommendations, opinions, etc.) and does not, in particular, reflect the statements made by any participant, except where a reservation in relation to any specific conclusion of the Working Group was expressed or repeated after the conclusion was reached.

report on the thirty-fourth session of the ipc committee of experts

7. The Working Group noted an oral report by the Secretariat on the thirty-fourth session of the IPC Committee of Experts (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") (see document IPC/CE/34/10), at which session the Committee had adopted amendments to the seventh edition of the IPC relating to nine subclasses, changes to references and subclasses indexes in the IPC emanating from revision amendments and recommendations of the Working Group with regard to double-purpose schemes in the IPC and separate indexing schemes.

8. The Working Group was informed that, in order to provide more time for the creation of the Master Classification Database and for the implementation of the reformed IPC in industrial property offices, the Committee had decided to postpone the entering into force of the reformed IPC for one year, until January 1, 2006. The Working Group noted the further decision by the Committee that the additional year before entering into force of the reformed IPC should be used for the enhanced implementation in the IPC of new features introduced by the reform, for example, for the introduction of more classification definitions into the electronic layer and for further improving the quality of the core and the advanced levels of the reformed IPC.

updating of ipc training examples

9. Discussions were based on Annex 25 to project file WG 093, containing the summary of discussions of the second meeting of the Task Force on "Updating of IPC Training Examples," held in Munich from May 3 to 7, 2004. The Working Group thanked the German Patent and Trade Mark Office for having hosted the meeting of the Task Force.

10. It was noted that the Task Force had discussed and approved the "Guidelines on Drafting Training Material" and the corresponding "Template" on a temporary basis, and had distributed tasks among its members for approximately 30 selected examples. It was also noted that the Task Force had reconfirmed, with some amendments, the categories of training examples approved by the Working Group during its tenth session.

11. The Working Group approved the working program of the Task Force for the second half of 2004. Offices were invited to submit comments on the Guidelines and the Template to the e-forum (Project WG 093) by November 15, 2004, in light of the Rapporteurs’ experience.

12. Having considered the comments submitted by the United States of America, which appeared in Annex 28 to project file WG 093, and opinions expressed by some Delegations regarding the difficulty to fulfill the requirement that a document could be selected as a training example only if family members were available in English, French and German languages, the Working Group agreed that it would consider this question at its twelfth session, in light of the Rapporteurs’ experience using the Guidelines and comments of other offices on the Guidelines.

13. It was finally agreed that the Working Group would approve the Guidelines, the Template and the selected examples, and appoint rapporteurs on additional examples at its twelfth session, in order to achieve the aim of consideration of all training examples by the end of 2005.

elaboration of classification definitions

14. The Working Group discussed a proposal, submitted by the United States of America on behalf of the Trilateral Offices, with respect to improving the process for creating classification definitions (see document IPC/WG/11/6). The Working Group noted that this proposal addressed many important aspects of the future interaction of the Special Subcommittee and the Working Group and, therefore, would supplement the document entitled "Revision Policy and Revision Procedure for the Reformed IPC" which had been adopted by the Committee of Experts (see Annex IV to document IPC/CE/33/12). It was therefore agreed that this proposal would require consideration by the Committee. The members of the Working Group were invited to submit comments on this proposal by September 1, 2004, and the United States of America volunteered to prepare a rapporteur report and revised proposal by October 1, 2004. A new Committee of Experts project (CE 352) would be created on the e-forum to collect these submissions.

15. The Working Group noted the request made by the Committee to establish a procedure for considering proposals for improving the IPC, collected in definition projects, with the objective of their incorporation in the scheme of the IPC (see document IPC/CE/33/12, paragraph 12).

16. The Working Group confirmed the importance of further consideration of observations related to problems discovered in the course of a definition project and briefly discussed various options on how they could be collected. The different options included the submission of a summary of the problematic issues to the file of the definition project by the Rapporteur, the separate collection of such observations in new Working Group projects, possibly subdivided according to technical fields, or even the direct initiation of a revision project.

17. The Working Group invited its members to submit comments on the various options or on other relevant aspects of such a procedure to the e-forum (Project WG 114), by September 30, 2004. The International Bureau was invited to prepare a consolidated proposal for such a procedure, based on those comments, on time for consideration by the Working Group at its next session.

18. The Working Group had before it, in particular, document IPC/WG/10/3 and the relevant project files. The decisions of the Working Group with respect to those projects, in particular new deadlines and translating offices, are listed in Annex F to this report and further information with respect to some of those decisions is given in paragraph 21, below. Some general remarks applying to several projects were made and are reproduced in paragraphs 19 and 20, below. The Working Group requested the International Bureau, when preparing the draft agenda of the future sessions of the Working Group, for the item concerning definition projects, to collect together the projects according to their technical field, that is, chemical, electrical or mechanical.

19. It was noted that rapporteurs have rarely employed the subheadings in the section "References Relevant to Classification." Rapporteurs of all definition projects, including those that had already been approved, were invited to review the proposed "References Relevant to Classification," and to place them under the relevant subheading, following the definition template.

20. It was agreed that, in exceptional cases, it would be permitted to have a classification place, such as a subclass, listed as a reference both in "References Relevant to Classification" and in the section "Informative References," if these references concern different subject matters covered by that place. It would, however, be required to clearly indicate those different subject matters to avoid confusion.

21. The Working Group made the following observations, in addition to the decisions set forth in Annex F to this report, with respect to the IPC Definition projects.

Project D 002 (chemical) – The Rapporteur was invited to submit an amended proposal taking into account Note (2) of class C07 (e.g., see Annex 28 to project file D 025); the example given in said Annex should be adapted to the present subclass. The Rapporteur was also invited to review and sort the references in the section "References Relevant to Classification" following the instructions indicated in paragraph 19, above.

Project D 003 (chemical) – The Working Group agreed on the amendments to the already approved definition project, as indicated in Annex 29 to the project file.

Project D 005 (chemical) – The English version of the project was conditionally approved and the Rapporteur was invited to remove the reference to "Markush"-type formulae from the first paragraph of the "Relationship" section, following the corresponding amendments in revision Project C 422.

Project D 006 (electrical) – It was noted that definition projects should not alter the scope of a subclass. If in a definition project it appeared that clarifications might require a change of scope of a subclass, a corresponding revision project should be initiated. The Working Group invited offices to submit comments on the references in Note (3) of subclass B81B and on whether a new revision project would be needed if they were considered as limiting references. The Rapporteur was asked to review the comments submitted after his last proposal and additional comments that would be submitted during the next round of comments.

In view of the highly important and rapidly developing technology in subclasses B81B, B81C and B82B, the Working Group recommended to the Special Subcommittee to give highest priority to revising these subclasses. Since for subclasses B81C and B82B the definition projects had already been approved and considerable progress had been achieved in Project D 006, the Working Group agreed that it would not be necessary to postpone finalization of Project D 006 until the revision of said subclasses.

Project D 010 (electrical) – This project was not approved even though it had received the necessary number of electronic approvals. The Rapporteur was invited to review the references in the section "Limiting References," to keep only those references which were related to several main groups and to place them under the corresponding subheadings of the section "References Relevant to Classification" (see paragraph 19, above). References related only to one main group should be placed under the definition of that group.

Project D 012 (mechanical) – The English version of the project was conditionally approved and the Rapporteur was invited to sort the "References Relevant to Classification" following the instructions indicated in paragraph 19, above.

Project D 025 (chemical) – The Working Group approved the English version of this project, in particular the way in which Note (2) of class C07 was taken into account in sections "Relationship Between Large Subject Matter Areas" and "Special Rules of Classification Within this Subclass." The Rapporteur was invited to add, in the "Relationship" section, an example of a compound classified in subclass C07F, following the last place priority rule between subclasses of class C07. The Working Group agreed that the subheading "Multiple Classification" could be used in the "Relationship" section if the Rapporteur found it useful. The Working Group also approved the French version of Annex 29 to the project file.

Project D 035 (mechanical) – The Rapporteur was invited to revise the definition statement in order to bring it in line with the notes after the title of subclass B60V. A definition of the term "vehicle," based on that found in Project D 015, should be included in the glossary of terms.

Project D 037 (chemical) – The English version of the project was approved. The Rapporteur was invited to include in the "Relationship" section the subheading used in the "Relationship" section of Project D 025 (see observations on Project D 025, above).

Project D 038 (chemical) – The English version of the project was conditionally approved. The Rapporteur was invited to replace the example in the last paragraph of the "Relationship" section by a more specific one.

Project D 039 (chemical) – The Rapporteur was invited to take account of Note (1) of class C12 in the "Relationship" section and to sort the "References Relevant to Classification" following the instructions indicated in paragraph 19, above. The Working Group also invited comments on whether the reference to A01K 67/00 should be regarded as a limiting reference rather than informative.

Project D 040 (chemical) – The English version of the project was conditionally approved. The Rapporteur was invited to take account of Note (1) of class C12 in the "Relationship" section and to sort the "References Relevant to Classification" following the instructions indicated in paragraph 19, above.

Projects D 041 and D 042 (mechanical) – The English versions of the projects were conditionally approved and the Rapporteur was invited to include the definition of the terms "lubricating" and "lubrication," respectively, in the definition statements, rather than in the glossary. The last phrase in the definition of the term "Engine" should be removed.

Project D 044 (electrical) – The Working Group decided to select alternative 2 as proposed in Annex 14 to the project file and approved the subclass definition in English.

Projects D 048 and D 049 (electrical) – Offices were invited to make comments on the proposals for alternative main group definition statements contained in the recent comments submitted by the United States of America (see Annex 20 to project file D 048 and Annex 14 to project file D 049, respectively).

Project D 050 (electrical) – The English version of the project was conditionally approved and the Rapporteur was invited to sort the "References Relevant to Classification," following the instructions given in paragraph 19, above.

introduction of residual main groups in ipc subclasses

22. Discussions were based on Annexes 1 to 7 to project file WG 111, containing a proposal prepared by the International Bureau on a procedure for introducing residual main groups, and comments submitted thereon.

23. In view of the experience obtained by studying some examples proposed in said Annex 2, the Working Group agreed that an "en masse" introduction of residual main groups, based on the recommendations given in said Annex 1 and by using a standard wording for the title of residual main groups, would not be possible.

24. It was therefore decided that each subclass should be considered individually and a rapporteur was appointed for each subclass. The duty of the rapporteur would be:

– to confirm recommendations not to create a new residual group if the scope of a subclass appears to be exhausted by its main groups, as indicated in said Annex 1;

– to confirm exhaustiveness of titles of existing residual groups (see said Annex 1);

– to propose titles for new residual groups, where needed, and to briefly explain that proposal, in particular when the proposal differs from the recommendation given in said Annex 1; this would facilitate reviewing of rapporteur proposals by the commenting office. In that respect it was noted that consultation of the relevant rearrangement project file would be helpful.

It was further agreed that:

– a standard title for residual groups should be used whenever possible; however, the rapporteur should carefully investigate if such a standard title would be appropriate or whether a particular title would be required in order to adequately define the scope of a residual main group;

– in general, only one new residual main group should be created per subclass; however, in some subclasses, e.g., in subclasses with multiple titles, several new residual main groups could be needed. The symbol of a single new residual group should be 99/00 whenever possible. Otherwise, the symbol should be 999/00.

25. The rapporteurs were requested to submit their proposals by September 1, 2004. While all offices were invited to comment on the proposals to be submitted, the Working Group agreed to assign, for each rapporteur office, a monitor office to review the proposals made by the rapporteur office and to submit its comments by October 1, 2004. In that respect, new rearrangement projects were created, as indicated in Annex G to this report, which Annex contains a table showing the agreed distribution of work.

26. The Working Group also invited the rapporteurs to indicate any problems they would encounter with respect to titles, references or notes and whether new definition, maintenance or revision projects would be needed in order to resolve such problems. The Working Group noted that, in some complex cases, it could therefore be necessary to postpone decisions on the introduction of new residual main groups beyond the entering into force of IPC-2006. In such cases, the "super-residual" groups could be used instead.

presentation of notes in the reformed ipc

27. Discussions were based on Annexes 1 to 13 to project file WG 112, containing a proposal prepared by the International Bureau on the presentation of notes in the reformed IPC and comments submitted by several offices on this proposal. The Working Group expressed its gratitude for the preparation of this extensive proposal by the International Bureau.

28. The Working Group approved the principles of presentation of notes in the reformed IPC as indicated in said Annex 1. However due to lack of time, offices were not in a position to check in detail the proposal contained in Annexes 4 to 9. Therefore, offices were invited to submit, to the IPC e-forum, their comments on the proposal, by September 30, 2004.

29. It was decided that the International Bureau would update said Annexes 4 to 9 containing the proposal, taking into account the comments made by offices, without resubmission of new annexes, but instead, with indication, in the Remark area of the e-forum, of dates when new changes are introduced and of explanations, if any.

30. It was noted that necessary steps would be taken by the International Bureau to make the updated annexes more user-friendly, so that offices could easily track the changes which had been introduced into the original annexes, for example, by using "track changes" in different fonts and "embedded notes" with indication of the origin of the change.

31. The Working Group also noted the comments submitted by the United States of America concerning the creation of a note in every subclass of the reformed IPC indicating which one of the common, first place priority or last place priority rules applies in the corresponding subclass. The Working Group agreed that the introduction of these notes was beyond the scope of this task.

32. The Working Group noted the comments submitted by the United States of America concerning the addition of a precedence reference to the title of several subclasses in classes C01, C07 and C12, in order to further specify the application of the last place priority rule between subclasses in those areas.

33. Although there was no doubt that the last place priority rule had been applied between these subclasses and that the existing notes in classes C01, C07 and C12 had provided sufficient guidance in that respect, the Working Group agreed to include examples in two of these notes in order to further clarify the application of the last place priority rule between subclasses. The following amendments were provisionally approved:

These notes will be reproduced in the corresponding places of Annex 6 to project file WG 112 and comments could be submitted in the framework of that project.

34. In addition to the above amendments, the Working Group agreed that a new note in each of the subclasses concerned would be introduced in order to draw the attention of IPC users to the notes concerning the last place priority rule in classes C01 and C07. The Working Group noted, with gratitude, that Sweden volunteered to prepare a proposal for such notes by July 1, 2004, on which offices were invited to submit comments by September 1, 2004 (Project WG 112). The Working Group agreed to discuss this issue at its next session, taking into account the proposals and comments to be submitted.

consideration of references in the advanced level of the ipc

35. Discussions were based on Annex 3 to project file WG 091, containing a proposal of the International Bureau on a procedure for a systematic categorization of references in the advanced level of the IPC, pointing to places outside their hierarchical branch, in order to reduce the number of consultations of the advanced level for core level users of the IPC, and on Annexes 4 and 5 containing comments submitted by the United States of America and the EPO on said proposal.

36. The principle of the categories, as indicated in said Annex 3, was approved. It was, however, noted that precedence references (category 2(a)) could not automatically be repeated in the corresponding core level groups, since this repetition might be unclear, or even wrong, as such precedence references would then cover all subgroups of such core level groups. These references should therefore be considered intellectually, case by case, in order to determine which precedence references could be repeated in the core level.

37. It was agreed that the International Bureau would make available, by August 30, 2004, four separate lists of groups with references corresponding to categories 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 2(a) and a list of groups with references of the remaining categories.

38. The following offices volunteered to check the above lists or references. Ireland for sections A and C, Sweden for section F, the United Kingdom for section B, EPO for sections D and E and the International Bureau for sections G and H.

39. The checking would consist of reviewing the automatic categorization of lists 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 2(a), indicating which precedence references of category 2(a) could be repeated in the core level and in determining which references from the list of "remaining categories" were limiting and which were informative (for definitions of limiting and informative references, see document IPC/CE/31/8, paragraph 17).

40. The volunteering offices were also invited to indicate for which of the references categorized as limiting the indication of this by the asterisk could be omitted, for example, when the estimated number of documents classified in the referred place is very small compared to the file size of the corresponding core level group, bearing in mind that "the final solution should provide for a fully self-sufficient version of the core level which would not require any consultation of the advanced level" (see document IPC/CE/34/10, paragraph 30).

41. Participating offices were invited to submit the results of their checking by November 15, 2004, at the latest, in order to allow consideration of this matter at the next session of the Working Group in December 2004.

requests for revision of the ipc

42. The Working Group considered the revision requests contained in document IPC/WG/11/2 and its Suppl.1, taking into account the comments reproduced in said document and in its Suppls.1 and 2.

43. The Working Group decided to include the following revision projects in the program of the current revision period:

Project C 426 (mechanical, subclass A01F) – The Rapporteur was invited to propose a new title for this subclass.

Project C 427 (mechanical, subclass B31B) – The Rapporteur was invited to propose which of the unprinted groups (appearing only in the electronic version of the IPC) should be deleted, with indication of the corresponding transfer notes. For those --/25 groups that would not be deleted, the Rapporteur was requested to correct references in those groups.

Project C 428 (mechanical, subclass E01D) – It was agreed to create a place for "Dismantling bridges" in subclass E01D. The Rapporteur was invited to include in his proposal the necessary references or notes in order to clarify the relation between subclasses E01D and E04G. The creation of a residual group in subclass E01D should also be considered. Furthermore, the International Bureau was invited to correct the spelling of the term "aqueducts" in group E01D 18/00.

Project C 429 (electrical, subclass G01G) – It was noted that group G01G 9/00 was referring to groups 1/00 to 7/00 while group G01G 19/00 was referring to groups 13/00 to 17/00. The Rapporteur was invited to adapt the titles of groups 9/00 and 19/00 accordingly, and to propose notes after the subclass title indicating the difference between the ranges of groups 1/00 to 9/00 and 11/00 to 19/00.

Project C 430 (chemical, subclass A62D) – The Rapporteur was invited to clarify the title of main group A62D 3/00, on the basis of the proposal submitted in the revision request, which proposal had been agreed on by the Trilateral Offices (see Annex III to document IPC/WG/11/2). In view of the existence in ECLA and in DECLA of subgroups of main group 3/00 covering subject matter not belonging to subclass A62D, the Rapporteur was invited to propose notes or references indicating the places where such subject matter should be covered. It was noted that there was no need for creation of subgroups in the core level. However, the Special Subcommittee was invited to consider creation of advanced level subgroups of main group A62D 3/00 as soon as possible. Finally, the Rapporteur was invited to review the subclass title and scope, and to indicate the relation of subclass A62D with other subclasses.

Project C 431 (chemical, subclass D21H) – The Rapporteur was invited to delete groups D21H 17/72 to 17/74 and, investigate whether the notes adopted by the Committee (see Annex V to document IPC/CE/34/10) give correct instructions on how to classify mixtures, according to constituent materials, in the other subgroups of main group D21H 17/00.

44. Concerning the request of the United Kingdom on subclass B21K, it was agreed to modify the title of group B21K 21/00 that had been approved during the tenth session of the Working Group (see Annex H to document IPC/WG/10/3), as follows:

"---not covered by any single one of groups 1/00 to 9/00 (essentially from sheet)---"

The International Bureau was requested to introduce the above amendment in the IPC as a correction of an obvious error.

45. Concerning the request of the United Kingdom on subclass C11D, it was noted that group C11D 17/00 covers not only "detergent materials" but also "soaps," in view of the documents classified in that group and of the title of group C11D 17/08, which covers "liquid soap." In order to remove any ambiguity it was decided to modify the title of main group C11D 17/00 as follows:

"detergent materials or soaps characterised by their ---"

and to move the existing horizontal line before group C11D 17/00. The International Bureau was authorized to introduce these amendments as minor modifications. Furthermore, a definition Project for subclass C11D was created (Project D061, rapporteur United Kingdom) in order to clarify the use of terms "soap" and "detergents," to investigate the titles of main groups and whether the guidance headings in this subclass were useful.

46. It was decided that a revision project was not needed for subclass B60L, as requested by the United Kingdom, since "electrodynamic brakes" and "dynamo-electric brakes" were two different types of brakes. It was however agreed that classification definitions should clarify the difference between these two types of brakes. Two definition projects were therefore created: D 060 (subclass B60L) and D 059 (subclass H02K). Rapporteurs were appointed and deadlines for actions were set as indicated in Annex F to this report.

47. Rapporteurs and Translators were appointed on the above revision projects (see Annex C to this report). Deadlines for the submission of the initial proposal and for the first round of comments were also indicated in said Annex C, bearing in mind that Rapporteurs were allowed to call for a second round of comments, if needed, in order to accelerate the completion of those projects during the current revision period.

IPC REVISION PROGRAM

48. The Working Group had before it, in particular, document IPC/WG/10/3 and the relevant project files.

49. The Working Group discussed four pending IPC revision projects and approved amendments relating to those projects (see Annexes 1 to 4 to this report). The decisions of the Working Group with respect to those projects are listed in Annex C to this report and further information with respect to some of these decisions is given in paragraph 50, below. A list indicating to which classes or subclasses amendments have been approved during the revision period appears as Annex D to this report. Changes to amendments approved at earlier sessions are indicated in Annex E to this report.

50. The Working Group made the following observations, in addition to the decisions set forth in Annex C to this report, with respect to the IPC revision projects.

Project C 388 (mechanical) – The Working Group approved the creation of subclass B60W on "conjoint control of vehicle sub-units." The titles of the subclass, main groups and most of the proposed one-dot groups were also approved (see Annex 1 to this report).

Comments were invited on (see said Annex 1):

– whether the third part of the subclass title was appropriate, in view of the subject matter intended to be covered and whether an overlap existed with group B60K 28/00;

– whether the definition of the terms included in the glossary of definition Project D 058 (see Annex 1 to project file D 058), in particular of the terms "drive units" and "sub-units," should also appear in the IPC scheme;

– whether the subject matter relating to "fuel cells" should be covered under the approved group 10/04 or under group 10/24, or whether a one-dot group should be created to cover said subject matter;

– whether the title of group B60K 6/00, concerning hybrid vehicles, should be modified in order to bring it in line with the approved group B60W 20/00;

– whether the titles of approved groups 30/00 and 40/00 correctly described the subject matter that they were intended to cover;

– whether the order of one-dot subgroups of main group 30/00 was appropriate in view of the first place rule which applies in this group;

– whether subject matter relating to proposed groups 3/26, "reducing drive line vibrations" and 3/32, "warning or prompting the driver" (see Annex 33 to the project file), should be covered under the approved main group 30/00 or provided for elsewhere;

– whether the title of the approved main group 50/00 was too broad and could lead to classifying documents therein that should not be classified in that place.

Furthermore, it was decided to delete group B60K 41/00, since its subject matter was covered by the new subclass B60W. The Rapporteur was invited to include respective transfer notes in the next proposal on this project.

Comments were invited on the remaining groups in the Rapporteur’s proposal that could be included in the core level of the IPC (indicated in bold characters in Annex 33 to the project file) and on the proposed changes to other subclasses (see said Annex 33).

Finally, the Rapporteur was invited to consider whether a residual main group was needed in subclass B 60W and, if that were the case, to propose a title for it.

Project C 412 (chemical) – It was noted that the subdivision of new group A61K 8/89 (see Technical Annex 5 to document IPC/CE/34/10) according to "substituents in the side groups of the backbone" could lead to some confusion and inconsistencies in the classification scheme, and it was therefore decided that this subdivision should be done simply according to the "substituents." The amended titles of subgroups of group A61K 8/89 appear in Annex 2 to this report.

Comments were invited on whether the new group A61K 8/893 should also provide for compounds containing an "aryloxy group" (see group C08G 77/18).

Project C 422 (chemical) – It was noted that the reference to "Markush"-type formulae in Note (2) after the title of subclass C40B, as adopted by the Committee (see Technical Annex 5 to document IPC/CE/34/10), could be misleading and therefore the Note was amended by removing that reference (see Annex 3 to this report).

Project C 424 (electrical) – Following the recommendation of the Committee at its thirty-fourth session (see document IPC/CE/34/10, paragraph 12), it was decided to create main group G06Q 90/00 to provide for subject matter "not involving significant data processing" and to modify accordingly Note (1) after the subclass title (see Annex 4 to this report).

It was confirmed that subdivision of the already approved main groups could not be considered during the current revision period. However, since the scope of some main groups was not explicit enough, examples were added to the titles of groups 10/00 and 40/00. In addition, the titles of groups 20/00 and 30/00 were slightly amended (see said Annex 4).

preparation of the eighth edition (ipc-2006) of the ipc

51. Discussions were based on document IPC/WG/11/3. In introducing the document, the Secretariat explained the remaining actions which were needed for the preparation of the eighth edition of the IPC and associated publications.

52. With regard to the preparation of the official catchword indexes to the eighth edition, the Secretariat explained that, essentially, this work would consist of updating of the existing catchwords and associated IPC symbols according to the revision amendments of the IPC, and that, although the Working Group had approved a number of new catchwords when considering IPC revision projects, further new catchwords could be proposed by participating offices.

53. The Working Group noted that the updating of the official catchword indexes would be based on a compilation of the amendments to the IPC adopted at the thirtieth to thirty-fourth sessions of the Committee and on the amendments to the IPC which would be forwarded to the thirty-fifth session of the Committee. The Working Group agreed that these materials would be submitted by the International Bureau by September 15, 2004, together with the reverse lists of the catchword indexes and a list of new catchwords and catchword phrases approved by the Working Group during the current revision period, to offices participating in the updating of the catchword indexes. The offices concerned were invited to submit proposals to the International Bureau by December 15, 2004.

54. The Working Group noted, with appreciation, that the following offices volunteered to participate in the updating of the catchword indexes:

55. With regard to the preparation of the revision concordance data between the seventh and eighth editions of the IPC, the Working Group noted that the International Bureau would submit, by September 15, 2004, to the rapporteurs for IPC revision projects, the compilation and the amendments referred to in paragraph 53, above, together with a list of groups in the IPC that had been deleted, with transfer information indicated for those groups. The rapporteurs concerned were invited to submit revision concordance data to the International Bureau by December 15, 2004.

56. The Working Group also noted that the draft specification for the publication of the revision concordance table in XML format was under preparation by the International Bureau.

57. The Working Group recalled its decision, taken at the tenth session of the Working Group (see document IPC/WG/10/3, paragraphs 48 to 50), that checking of the core level of the reformed IPC should be carried out in order to verify that the structure and contents of the core level were sufficient for classifying without consulting the advanced level and that the EPO, Ireland and Sweden volunteered to participate in this work.

58. The Secretariat informed the Working Group that the preparation of the final distribution of IPC groups between the core and the advanced levels was close to completion and, as expected, would be finalized in September 2004. Following this, the files containing the core and the advanced levels subdivided according to sections or subclasses of the IPC, would be published on the Internet in a format permitting easy browsing, printing and downloading.

59. The Working Group noted that the International Bureau would inform the participating offices of the procedure and timing for checking of the core level.

60. In response to a question raised with regard to the availability for offices of a specification of the files of the reformed IPC, the Secretariat informed the Working Group that the draft specification and the respective DTD were under elaboration in the framework of the CLAIMS project and the progress in their elaboration would be reported at the thirty-fifth session of the Committee, in October 2004. The Secretariat indicated that the implementation of IPC reform in offices would be one of the major items for discussion at that session of the Committee and invited the offices to include in their Delegations to the session both IPC experts and IT specialists in order to ensure the most efficient discussion of this item.

61. In response to a question concerning difficulties in reclassification of patent collections for offices not having sufficient resources for carrying out this work, the Secretariat informed the Working Group that a circular would be shortly sent to members of the IPC Union and other offices explaining needs in reclassification for the building of the comprehensive worldwide patent collection in the Master Classification Database and various options which could be used for pursuing this goal.

updating of the ipc material in the wipo handbook on industrial property information and documentation

62. Discussions were based on document IPC/WG/11/4.

63. In introducing the document, the Secretariat outlined the material contained in the IPC-related part of the WIPO Handbook on Industrial Property Information and Documentation and indicated that the material relating to the revision of the IPC should be completely reconsidered, in view of the numerous changes introduced by IPC reform in the structure, basic principles and revision procedure of the IPC.

64. The Working Group agreed that the documents "Philosophy of the IPC Revision Work" and "Specific Instructions for the Revision of the IPC" should be reconsidered in order to provide a sufficient basis for the future revision process of the reformed IPC. The Working Group noted that certain parts of those publications could still be used in the preparation of new documents.

65. The Working Group accepted, with gratitude, an offer by the Delegation of Sweden, to prepare drafts of the documents "Philosophy of the IPC Revision Work" and "Specific Instructions for the Revision of the IPC" for the reformed IPC and agreed to create a new project for carrying out this work (Project WG 113).

66. In view of the considerable amount of the work involved, the Working Group requested Sweden to include in the drafts only the basic contents of the new documents and to submit the drafts by September 15, 2004. Comments on the drafts were invited by October 15, 2004, and the rapporteur report by Sweden by November 10, 2004.

67. The Working Group agreed, following consideration of the drafts at its next session, to establish a procedure for further work on the documents, for example, in the framework of a Task Force.

guidelines on the rearrangements of main groups according to the standardized sequence

68. Following the provisional adoption of the French version of the "Guidelines on the Rearrangement of Main Groups According to the Standardized Sequence" at its tenth session (see Annex G to document IPC/WG/10/3), the Working Group considered the amendments to those Guidelines submitted by France (see document IPC/WG/11/5). The Working Group approved with some additions those amendments and the final version of the Guidelines is reproduced in Annex H to this report.

Status of the work

69. The Chair stated that four revision projects on the agenda of this session (see Annex B to this report) had been dealt with and completed in at least one language. The Chair indicated that Annex C to this report gave the status of each revision project and brief information on actions to follow. He furthermore stated that, in total, 25 definition projects were approved in English and, in addition, four definition projects were completed in both English and French. He also indicated that Annex F to this report gave the status of each definition project on the program.

70. The Chair stated that, at this session, the Working Group had continued an important work program of the implementation of the results of IPC reform and had achieved good progress.

Next SESSION OF THE WORKING GROUP

71. The Working Group, having assessed the workload expected for its next session (see paragraph 72, below), agreed to devote the first three days of the first week to the mechanical field, the remainder of that week to the electrical field and the first three days of the second week to the chemical field.

72. The Working Group noted the following tentative dates for its twelfth session:

November 29 to December 10, 2004.