Europäisches
Patentamt
European
Patent Office
Office européen
des brevets
Principal Directorate Tools / Documentation
Rapporteur Report
Project: TE206
IPC Training example
13 January 2005
The training example had been already discussed during WG12 and the rapporteur was requested to prepare a
new rapporteur proposal including comments made in Annexes 4 to 6 to the project file. The comments of GB
and SE could be easily incorporated in the improved proposal.
Nevertheless RR is convinced that this example is not suited for training of new classifiers, in consideration
of the fact that experienced classifiers have very different ideas how to classify this document (see below). In
addition, it is not good to use an example where the related training material is not correct (missing reference to
E06B7/16).
The US-comment focused in the new proposed abstract on the method of manufacturing and the assembly of
the sealing strip. RR believes, that this modified abstract won’t help the trainee classifier, because it will focus
the classification task on the more difficult method of manufacturing. That the method of manufacturing forms
a part of this invention could be expressed by an additional sentence.
Furthermore the US comment ask for deletion of the “representative prior art”. RR thinks that this section is
still useful for the classifier, because it clearly summarises the state of art, which is a help for determining the
invention information.
RR does not agree that the sealing assemblage is only for particular use on a vehicle frame. The application of
the sealing to a vehicle body is nowhere mentioned in the claims, and a special statement for the general use of
these sealings could be found in the description. The limitation in claim 7, that the corner has a predetermined
sharp angle is no indication that these sealings are suited only for vehicle doors. The note (2) after subclass title
B60J gives a clear indication that these seal assemblages with further reaching applicability are covered by
E06B. This is the reason that the possible application to vehicle doors was only considered as an additional
information.
RR agrees that the method of manufacturing and the assemblage per se must be classified but is not convinced
that the proposed group B29C65/70 is a proper entry for this multi-step process. According to paragraph 98 of
the Guide this method should be classified in the place for the product. The same applies to the second proposal
B29D31/00 which is a residual place for particular articles from plastics not covered elsewhere.
The US-comment revealed a further residual group B62D65/06 for manufacturing vehicle doors, which could
be interesting for search but not for an additional classification, because it is a residual place and the other given
classifications in E06B7/23 and B60J10/08 are more appropriate places for this subject matter.