Europäisches
Patentamt
European
Patent Office
Office européen des brevets
Principal Directorate Tools / Documentation
Comments Project: D112 C01B 1 2 J a n u r y 2 0 0 6
Ref.: - Initial R proposal (annex 1)
- JP comments (annex 2)
<Apologies for the late sending of our comments.>
1. We appreciate the excellent work done by R on this project. We thus largely agree with the proposal of annex 1.
2. Some of our reflections were already expressed by the JPO. So we agree with the comments made in annex 2, in particular, point:
(6) By-products. An alternative to deletion could be to add something like
" However, such by-products could be given an additional classification if they themselves or the processes for obtaining them are considered of interest."
(9) Preservation additives. This paragraph should indeed be deleted or rephrased.
(10) Zeolites: the definition in the scheme and the Definition should be the same indeed, because this is a very essential group of compounds for C01B.
3. Further comments
3.1 Definition statement:
- First sentence: we would prefer "The chemical elements ---"
- Second sentence, second phrase. As it reads now, the impression is given as if zeolites are an example of compounds with only molecular sieve properties. So to be rephrased.
3.2 Relationship ---:
Second par.: we would prefer to read "----entry for the chemical elements and their compounds themselves ----"
3.3 References:
A reference to C09C (Treatment of inorganic materials ---) seems to be useful
(limiting) and maybe also to C40B (Libraries) (informative !?).
3.4 Special rules:
- Second par., it is very exceptional to cite tradenames in the IPC, and in C01B this is only done in one main-group (39/00). Therefore we found the statement too strong and prefer to add something along the lines of: "In this subclass, some tradenames ----"
- Last par., we suggest "----provided for elsewhere , are ----"
3.5 Glossary:
- Binary compound: "----two distinct chemical elements."
- Organic compound: C01B is a pure inorganic subclass. The glossary gives a precise explanation of what is considered to be an inorganic compound. It is obvious that all other compounds are organic. Is it therefore not confusing to add in this inorganic subclass an entry for organic compounds ?
Paul Daeleman