704 W Park Ave Suite C
 Edgewater FL 32132-1409
 Ph 800-832-2823
 Fx 208-631-6381
 Outside the US:

IP Data Corporation


 P9 Patent Full Text Search System (Now in Version 7)

The P9 Patent Search System is a custom indexing and search system designed specifically for patent data. The indexer is designed to parse and index MAPS or MAPS-XML formatted patent text data. This indexing process stores the data for each patent in a custom series of indexes designed for high-speed searching with the P9 Search Engine. 

Search/Display Capabilities include:

  • Each Search results in a saved List Set (list of Patents/Apps called an LSet)
  • Boolean logical search operators AND, OR and NOT for Words and Previous LSets
  • Proximity Operators include ADJn (Adjacent 1 to 999 words) NEARn (Near 1-999 words)
  • Proximity operators work on single Terms and are expanded through Parenthetical groups of Terms
  • Full Text and Image Data Sets include:
       US Full Text of Applications (2001 to current)
       US Full Text of Patents (1976 to current)
       EP Full text of Application and Patents (1978 to current)
       PCT Full Text Applications  (1978 to current),
       JP English Abstracts (1980 to current)
  • Complete English Abstracts are included for Non-English PCT and EP applications.
  • Multi-color highlighting of Keywords in Context for displayed text
  • Very fast image page "Flipping" between pubs or into each pub (13 zoom levels)
  • Gray-scale text on image pages for extremely good text clarity

Overall System Features:

  • Complete system delivered ready to use on a Microsoft compatible TCP/IP network
  • Delivered with all indexed data ready to search (Just add power and a network),
  • 6Gb/s Solid State Drives for the Index and Text data for VERY FAST searching,
  • System is fully maintained for 5 years with an active annual data/index subscription
  • Updates loaded remotely each week (10Mbit/sec sustained inbound bandwidth required)
  • Replacement drives are filled and shipped to you within 3 business days (usually sooner),
  • Entire spare "loaner system" ready to ship at all times for any major problems
  • Image Data is included, but may be excluded if you only need full text,
  • Annual subscription cost for ALL updates is about $14K/year (text, images, indexes)
  • Updates include images (if ordered), full text, classification updates and indexes, 
  • You own the system and all data up to and including all data delivered except P9 software,
  • P9 Search Software is licensed to you at no cost each year with an active subscription,
  • Search system remains licensed on that hardware for use even if subscription lapses
  • Windows Operating System software is included (register and activated to you),
  • Works with all of your current desktop computers with relatively current browsers,
  • An 8 Port Network Switch (w/7 free ports) included to build small "search room LAN" 
  •    (Just plug in 7 of your "network-able" computers and you "in business")
Call and ask for the P9 Information Package for detailed specifications and prices


Same US Patents, Different CPC Classifications.   WHY? 

The USPTO MCF data began in late 2015, and almost immediately we noticed differences between the MCF and DOCDB for the same US patents. The differences were not trivial. 30 days later we started our project to track and analyze these differences. 

We mistakenly assumed that the USPTO sent DOCDB updates to the EPO with CPC classes in them, and the EPO used them.  But as it turns out, US patents are classified by both authorities, and not always in the same Groups and Sub-Groups. A small number were even found to be in totally different sub-classes and a few were not even in the same class  (all of these appeared to be mistakes and were fixed fairly quickly). 

Early results indicated it was a learning curve. The EPO had a decent headstart with the new CPC since it has its roots in ECLA, the EPO's previous system, with both based on the ST.8 standard (with minor differences). For the USPTO, it was a brand new ball game with a different set of rules. Frankly, the thought of training 9000 or so examiners on a new Class system in 12 to 18 months conjureed up images of hearding cats...  while wearing a blindfold. To the USPTO's credit, we began to see far fewer differences in less than 8 or 9 month (summer of 2016).  We are now headed into the winter of 2017, and thankfully, they are growing even closer.  

If you build your own search system, this could be a problem for your searchers. If not, does your current search provider index both sets?

Searching by classification is the most popular method for professional searchers, and depending on the type of search, a good searcher will often "eyeball" EVERY document in the Sub-Groups of interest. This can be hundreds of documents, or even a thousand or two depending on the technology.

The following questions remain:

1)  Whose CPC data is more accurate?

2) They will ever match exactly- No-  so how close will they get?

3) How will this affect your class searches?

4) Is it wise to index both sets of CPC data into one system?  (we think so - just ignore the duplicates!)

5)  CPC data for Reissue patents is still not included in the U.S. MCF. Will it ever be?

We will continue to acquire Reissue CPC data from DOCDB for our subscribers in our standard CSV file format until the USPTO supplies it.