JAPAN PATENT OFFICE
May 08, 2013
Project: M014
JP Comments
JP thanks Sweden for proposing the improved class and subclass titles.
Though little time is left before the upcoming Working Group, JP would like to
make some comments again. JP is sorry for her late comments.
General Remark
SE made the following remarks:
In general, we do not agree with the EP proposal to focus on definitions rather
than titles. The titles should with reasonable accuracy define the scope of
places. Definitions are intended to give further precision in case there are
particular difficulties of interpretation or borderlines.
To focus on definitions rather than titles would be in contradiction of paragraph
68 of the Guide, which states that "it is the intention in the Classification that
the titles of subclasses, taking into consideration any references, definitions or
notes associated therewith, define as precisely as possible the scope of the
subject matter covered thereby."
JP fully supports this view and also believes that the titles should with
reasonable accuracy define the scope of places
.
B29B
JP shares the same concerns with EP, and we think those concerns are not
resolved by the SE proposal. So, JP would like to make following comments to
share a common understanding of the proposal.
(1) Firstly, in the proposal for B29B, a new description “substances to be worked
in a plastic state” was inserted. Our experts are concerned that this insertion
may not clarify the scope of the group, but in fact may cause
misunderstanding as to “what is included in B29B and what is not.” For
example, “reinforcements” and “fillers” in B29B15/08 do not perform function
nor action in a plastic state, as these materials perform function or action in a
solid state; consequently, the new insertion in B29B may cause
misunderstanding that “reinforcements” and “fillers” are no longer included in
B29B. With this concern in mind, JP would appreciate if SE provides us with
explanations for: (a) the meaning of “substances to be worked in a plastic
state” and (b) some examples of “substances to be worked in a plastic state”.
(2) Secondly, our experts are also concerned that the proposed modification for
B29B title may affect the scope for other groups. For example, “substances
to be worked in a plastic state” in the proposed title for B29B does not match
with the description of “the material to be shaped” in B29B15/00 and may
create confusion. Our experts believe that if the B29B title were modified in
accordance with the proposal, then the description of B29B15/00 must also
be modified to maintain the coordination. This is just one example which
drew our experts’ attention; there may be other cases like this. JP would
appreciate if SE provides us with an opinion on this issue.
Improved class title of B23
After full consideration, JP respectfully objects SE’s idea to change the class title
of B23.
JP admits that some subject matter, which is applicable to the processing of non
metal materials, is covered by classification under class B23, e.g. B23K 26/00.
While on the other hand, other subject matter, which is in principle not applicable
to the processing of non metal materials, is also covered by classification under
class B23, e.g. B23K 9/00.
However as we can see the paragraph 68 of INTERNATIONAL PATENT
CLASSIFICATION GUIDE, the titles of classes only broadly indicate their
contents and don’t define precisely the subject matter covered by the titles.
Therefore JP considers it’s not necessary to include the processing of non metal
materials to the class title of B23, which can be rough as the GUIDE indicates.
In addition JP points that rigid interpretation to restrict the scope of class B23 to
the processing of metal only is avoided by the Note 2 of B23, which JP referred
to in her comment of February 26, 2013.
Furthermore JP is afraid that some words added to the title, similar working of
other materials, are ambiguous and unclear, which can be interpreted by many
different ways by classifiers or IPC users and make them think that the intended
scope of class B23 may have been changed.
In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, JP prefers to keep the present title
and Notes of class B23 as they are.
Improved subclass titles of B23B, C, D, F, G, K, P and Q
After full consideration, JP also objects SE’s idea to introduce metal into the
subclass titles of B23B, C, D, F, G, K, P, and Q.
As the GUIDE states, the titles of subclasses must define as precisely as
possible the scope of the subject matter covered thereby, in sharp contrast with
the titles of classes.
Therefore in case of introducing metal into the subclass titles of B23B, C, D, F, G,
K, P, and Q, the scope of these subclasses must be restricted to the processing
of metal materials only and subject matter of the processing of the non metal
materials is no longer covered by the subgroups, which is contradictory to the
classification practice of JPO as well as other IP offices.
In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, JP prefers to keep the present titles
of subclasses B23 B, C, D, F, G, K, P, and Q as they are.
Improved class title of B21
JP prefers to keep the present of B21 as it is, because JP finds no need of
improving it. JP is afraid that it may make IPC users think that the intended
scope of class B21 may have been changed and cause unexpected problems to
change the title of class B21.
Improved subclass titles of B21D, F, G, J, K and L
JP can accept the improved subclass titles of B21D, F, G, J, K and L.
Thank you, again and best regards.
Masayuki SHINOHARA
Hirokazu MUTA
Yoshitaka OTA
[END]