Siberkhem's Free Patent Search Course
201012161022: As many of you are well aware, patent searching is merely a subset of a far more comprehensive "state-of-the-art" technology search effort. The ONLY WAY (in my "humble" opinion) to be able to search through the enormous and perpetually increasing quantity of information becoming available, especially through the internet, is to ESTABLISH (wherever necessary) and to MAINTAIN an organizational structure of the various information sources as they become available. Examples of organizational structures for patents are the various PATENT CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES. Examples of organizational structures for books and written literature include the Library of Congress and Dewey Decimal (proprietary) coding systems.


The paramount importance of MAINTAINING and adhering to these systems cannot be underestimated. These systems are the FOUNDATIONS upon which efforts to invent and create (e.g., writing papers, books, patent applications, etc.)reply on to make sure that any effort to create a presumably "new invention" is not unnecessarily wasted, or to determine whether that effort can be redirected to NEW, more useful, valuable, and meaningful directions where society's needs exist or may arise.

These organizational structures MUST take into consideration the following factors: 1) linguistic aspect, such as particular language, dialect, semantics, form (word vs phrase vs sentence, and word endings, choosing singular v plural, noun v verb, etc.) and terminology construction (e.g., complete words, abbreviations or symbols); 2) TOTAL concept coverage, i.e., an adequately comprehensive coverage of ALL technical aspects and features in existence and anticipated; and 3)overall format and presentation, e.g., linear tabular or visualized mapped and interactive format (such as THINKMAP's VISUALTHESAURUS).

The FIRST STEP in finding a suitable organizational scheme for ALL information is to find an underlying "essential" set of categorizations upon which all else can be "logically" built. Metaphors are very important in such constructions since seemingly arbitrary relationships can be resolved with an adequate "metaphorical interpretation". In patent practitioner circles, metaphorical interpretations are called "analogies" and concepts and features between apparently different subject areas are rendered comparable based on the notion of "analogous arts". Any useful organizational structure must take into consideration the manner in which such "analogous arts" are differentiated. In the US Patent Classification System, this differentiation is performed by explanations in complete sentences and paragraphs in the Class Definitions, where the "lines between the classes", as well as "lines" between subclasses, is defined. The "problem" of subject overlap will only be exacerbated as distinctions between various technical features, previously regarded as unique or narrowly defined, find application in other subject areas. For example, the field of "pure" mathematics, especially in prime number generation, is no longer "pure", but has practical application in such important subject areas as data security and intellectual property protection (e.g., BLUERAY DVDs).

Now you might ask, why isn't this website up and running with shnazzy visual effects and all? Very good question, and the most obvious reason is that I do the webmastering all myself and I have had to partition my available 24h/d, 365d/y (that's ALL the available time there is for anyone!) in performing various work for my clients, who expect only the best the fastest at the lowest cost, and all other activities that will result in a patent search course that will satisfy the largest group of patent/technology searchers: those who want to REALLY FIND OUT WHAT's OUT THERE and present those findings to another (or even to themselves at a later date).

Remember how technology is perpetually changing. Metaphors describing patent searches need to take into consideration this time-dependent aspect of technology. A term such as "patent landscape" (that appears to have begun and is being perpetuated by some persons at the headquarters of Dow Chemical in Midland, Michigan) cannot possibly address the many time-dependent aspects of patent searching. For example, how does the "landscape" metaphor take into consideration all of these corresponding metaphoric comparisons:



As you can see, there are simply too many variables that the metaphor of a "landscape" fails to address that makes this metaphor an exceedingly poor choice to use when describing a "patent search effort". For example, how would a patent searcher distinguish between a "scorched landscape" search report versus a "regular landscape" search report, and what would a "regular landscape" be anyway, a rolling hill setting during the fall color changes? And is the "end of a search", the description of the trees on the hills or the presence of any mountains? Is the "searching" being compared with "mapping" the landscape, i.e., its topography, or the underlying mineral deposits? A "snapshot" is a far better, if not entirely well-defined, term. Hopefully the users of the "landscape" metaphor do not expect others to "assume" that a landscape is equivalent to or analogous to a snapshot of the "state-of-the-art"?

Far better metaphors for patent searching might be "prospecting for gold", "rummaging through the attic", or "seeking the Holy Grail". At least the comparisons can more easily be made with searching for subject matter and technical features.

Clearly, terms used in ALL aspects of performing and reporting technical search results must be clearly defined, and a metaphor that triggers thoughts of driving around in the countryside does not contribute in any way to this important effort, and should be entirely avoided. Also, bringing such terms into the sphere of patent searches only makes the overall effort more confusing and distracts from the true goal: to find and present the information in a clear and unambiguous manner.

So, let's TRY to establish a COMPREHENSIVE and logically based CORE subject categorization of ALL subject matter, and then try to somehow "fit" all of technology and its various concepts and features INTO OR explain how they emanate FROM this essential CORE.

Three CORE Essentials for any individual's survival: 1] Sustenance; 2] Clothing; and 3] Shelter. Now here are MY two additional "core essentials" for humanity's survival, i.e., group survival: 4] Communication; and 5] Occupation.

So, how do these "essentials" relate to Patents? This is easily explained since all patents MUST have some industrial applicability. This is given in the BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION section of patent specifications. These portions of patents explain how the disclosed inventions benefit society in some way, improve lives, etc., i.e., they address how to improve some societal ESSENTIAL or NEED. This is in contrast to an industrial design or trademark that primarily distinguishes one provider or service from all others, but does not directly address an ESSENTIAL.

Thus, the FIVE CORE ESSENTIALS for categorization of ALL subject matter information, that should somehow fall into or emanate from these categories, are:

Now, the purpose for this initial breakdown is to attempt to apply a mathematical metaphor of set theory to the general categorization of all knowledge, including having somewhat mutual exclusivity, i.e., each category can somehow stand "alone", and to create generally equivalently "sized" groupings to break the overall field of all knowledge into separate, smaller, and more "manageable" groups.

You may ask, well how do seemingly overlapping areas fit into (or emanate from) this "grand 5-core scheme"? Here we will need to more particularly define the "lines" between each of these CORE categories to place all other subject matter into them. This will require some logical comparisons and arguments, as well as a continuing effort to keep all of the five groups in a general "balance" of size, so that the breakdown of all the subject matter is balanced somewhat evenly. Here is my "version":



You will already see some overlap. For example, should "politics" fit more appropriately into "communication" rather than "occupation"? This is simply a matter of choice and requires a logical argument to discern between the two, as well as a consideration of maintaining a balance in the overall "sizes" of the two CORE categories. I have chosen to place politics an law into occupation, since I argue that the COMMUNICATION CORE involves processes that can ALWAYS be subcategorized ultimately into OBJECTIVELY identifiable elements, whereas I argue that the OCCUPATION CORE involves processes that can OCCASIONALLY be subcategorized ONLY in SUBJECTIVELY identifiable elements. Of course, the distinction between an "objectively" versus a "subjectively" identifiable element remains to be further clarified as well. Nevertheless, that is my initial attempt at an overall general knowledge/subject matter breakdown. From these FIVE CORE categories, all other subject matter will either belong to in a logically explainable manner, or emanate from.

If we allow these FIVE CORE categories to "rest" briefly to allow us to judge their merit, we may want to compare their arrangement with other existing information or knowledge organizational schemes. Here is a synopsis of the eight categories, or "Classes", used in Roget's International Thesaurus (of English Word Synonyms):