1. Handling search results IRF Symposium 2007, Vienna Antoine Blanchard – Patent Information, Syngenta

2. 2 Workflow Delivery (Final) answer set Evaluation Further state of the art Relevant documents Pre-evaluation Remove false drops Enhanced retrieval

3. 3 Pre-evaluation (Final) answer set Pre-evaluation Remove false drops

4. 4 Pre-evaluation: How much? If recall was favored over precision during retrieval, can be a lengthy process…

5. 5 Pre-evaluation: How? Use pointers – In “native” format (kwic or title) when subject matter is easy to discriminate based on wording or when dealing with non-patent literature… L5 ANSWER 43 OF 555 WPIX COPYRIGHT 2007 THE THOMSON CORP on STN AN 2006-629207 [66] WPIX TI Preparation of e.g. aromatic amines comprises hydrogenating nitro-aromatic compounds in presence of catalyst L5 ANSWER 44 OF 555 WPIX COPYRIGHT 2007 THE THOMSON CORP on STN AN 2006-585255 [60] WPIX TI New substituted imidazo(4,5-b)pyridine derivatives, useful for treating e.g. prostate cancer, endometriosis, primary hirsutism, and precocious puberty, are gonadotropin releasing hormone receptor antagonists L5 ANSWER 45 OF 555 WPIX COPYRIGHT 2007 THE THOMSON CORP on STN AN 2006-540548 [56] WPIX TI Heterogeneous catalytic hydrogenation of organic compound by hydrogenating immiscible two- phase mixture of organic compound, hydrogenated reaction product and water, and using monolith catalyst having catalytic metal and monolith support

6. 6 Pre-evaluation: How? – Derpict subscription in house (e.g. for chemical structures, less for concept searches)

7. 7 Pre-evaluation: How? Use original document in professional viewer

8. 8 Evaluation (Final) answer set Evaluation Further state of the art Relevant documents Pre-evaluation Remove false drops

9. 9 Evaluation: How? Only when need to go beyond landscape search Based on the original document Depending on the search type – FTO search  check claims – Patentability search  check claims + description

10. 10 Citation searching (Final) answer set Evaluation Further state of the art Relevant documents Pre-evaluation Remove false drops Enhanced retrieval

11. 11 Enhanced retrieval: Why? Use the core set to complete the picture – Can be more or less relevant After evaluation, the document set is also valuable as a search tool Core set (“seed”) Backward and forward citations InventorCompany

12. 12 Delivery (Final) answer set Evaluation Further state of the art Relevant documents Pre-evaluation Remove false drops Enhanced retrieval

13. 13 Delivery: How? Search report = Word document Attachments and comments depend on the search type – Landscape search  WPI abstracts + interactive patent map – FTO, patentability  detailed description of each document and links to original documents with added value 100+ ≈ 5

14. 14 Pros and cons of multiple systems Pros Keep control of the workflow and balance working time with cost Compensate each other's weak point Cons Lose track of what you’ve done (search terms, coding systems…) Lose accuracy (patent numbers ambiguity, different coverage, different definitions of patent families…)

15. 15 Some final thoughts… Dealing with patents is more complex but gives more opportunities than dealing with non-patent literature Evaluation and delivery are seen as two separate steps (no computer-guided evaluation, no sharable annotations…) User seldom relies on support provided by the system for the evaluation (ranking, clustering…) Having in house patent repository opens wide perspectives

16. 16 Acknowledgments Gerhard Fischer & Nicolas Lalyre for brainstorming Syngenta colleagues for valuable comments IRF & Matrixware for the invitation All speakers and attendees for playing the game

17. 17 PNs ambiguity => fil hcaplus => CN1111476/PN L1 2 CN1111476/PN => d an ti 1- L4 ANSWER 1 OF 2 HCAPLUS COPYRIGHT 2007 ACS on STN AN 1995:881457 HCAPLUS DN 123:322178 TI Breathable, cloth-like film/nonwoven composite L4 ANSWER 2 OF 2 HCAPLUS COPYRIGHT 2007 ACS on STN AN 1995:756348 HCAPLUS DN 123:163283 TI Synergistic microbicidal compositions in rice

18. 18 Impact of different definitions of patent families WPI Aureka deduplicate Family 1 Family 2 Unique family WPI Aureka

19. 19 Definitions Landscape search: – Search to provide a reasonable state of the art on a broadly defined subject matter. Patentability search – Preliminary search to assess novelty & non-obviousness of an invention (any form of disclosure is accepted). FTO search: – Search to check that one invention can be freely used or commercialized i.e. is not covered by any patent claim in force.