1. IPC – a sound tool for Environmentally Sound Technologies?

2. 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 relations

3. 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) Outline of IPC – EST relation

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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 Criticism

7. Optimum: All documents pertaining to specific technical area (concept) are found What to achieve in search ? Recall = = 1 # retrieved relevant documents # existing relevant documents Efficiency: no irrelevant documents Precision = = 1 # relevant retrieved documents # retrieved documents

8. Why classification? –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 Advantages of using IPC in comparison to only term / keyword searching:

9. 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

10. 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 10/00Energy 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)

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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 ?

14. 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?

15. 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