(local copy of Original)
| Industry of Use | The industry employing the art or the use to which a device is put. |
| Proximate Function | Similar processes or structures that achieve similar results by applying similar natural laws to similar substances are considered to have the same fundamental utility and are grouped together. |
| Effect or Product | The results produced by the art. |
| Structure | The structural configuration or physical makeup of the object. (such as chemical compounds) |
| Ornamental Appearance | Separate collection of Design classes. Classified based on function or intended use and subdivided by ornamental, appearance and structure. |
| IPC | USPC |
| Section | Discipline (Mechanical) |
| Class | IV. Conclusions For the foregoing discussion, it is shown that IPC divides into 69,000 subdivisions and there are over 125,000 subdivisions for USPC. In term of depth of classification, USPC usually gives more information of what the invention is. On the other hand, in the IPC, an invention is mainly classified according to its "function". USPC, however, is not classified based on only the function but industry or use, effect or products, and structure as well. Therefore, USPC is categorized much more elaborately than IPC. Due to the character of USPC, extremely narrow in focus, it is sometimes difficult for a person who is not in the state of the art to search by USPC. Extremely broad in focus for IPC makes searchers obtain many unrelated prior art in a crowded invention field while searching by IPC. Though the USPTO has developed a concordance between its USPC system and the IPC, these concordance tables are not always accurate nor complete since the various classification systems are different and not all revised at the same frequency. Consequently, the Concordance should not be used alone to identify the correct classification area of the IPC 7th that corresponds to a classification area in the USPC. The difference between national classification is so great and the concordance tables are not exactly correct. Additionally, to reclassify each of foreign patent documents according to its own national classification is inefficient. Using IPC and USPC, two major patent classification systems, is confusing for searchers. Therefore, establishing a uniform classification system or a good concordance system between IPC and USPC would be a welfare for people who doing patent searches. Reference:
http://www.wipo.int Concordance U.S. to International Patent Classification (2000 edition) Examiner Handbook on the U.S. Patent Classification System (Rev. 2/99) Overview of the Classification System (Rev. 6/99) Index U.S. Patent Classification System (Dec. 1999) Copyright © 1997-98, Franklin Pierce Law Center. All rights reserved. |
|
|
|
Ó
Amoebius Stand: 02. Juli 2004 |
| home | top |