Handling search results
IRF Symposium 2007, Vienna
Antoine Blanchard – Patent Information, Syngenta
Workflow
Pre-evaluation
(Final) answer set
Remove false drops
Delivery
Further state of
the art
Evaluation
Relevant
documents
Enhanced retrieval
2
Pre-evaluation
(Final) answer set
Pre-evaluation
Remove false drops
3
Pre-evaluation: How much?
If recall was favored over precision during retrieval, can be a
lengthy process…
4
Pre-evaluation: How?

Use pointers
– In “native” format (kwic or title) when subject matter is
easy to discriminate based on wording or when dealing
with non-patent literature…
L5
ANSWER 43 OF 555
WPIX COPYRIGHT 2007
THE THOMSON CORP on STN
AN
2006-629207 [66]
TI
Preparation of e.g. aromatic amines comprises hydrogenating nitro-aromatic compounds in
WPIX
presence of catalyst
L5
ANSWER 44 OF 555
WPIX COPYRIGHT 2007
THE THOMSON CORP on STN
AN
2006-585255 [60]
TI
New substituted imidazo(4,5-b)pyridine derivatives, useful for treating e.g. prostate cancer,
WPIX
endometriosis, primary hirsutism, and precocious puberty, are gonadotropin releasing hormone
receptor antagonists
L5
ANSWER 45 OF 555
WPIX COPYRIGHT 2007
THE THOMSON CORP on STN
AN
2006-540548 [56]
TI
Heterogeneous catalytic hydrogenation of organic compound by hydrogenating immiscible two-
WPIX
phase mixture of organic compound, hydrogenated reaction product and water, and using monolith
catalyst having catalytic metal and monolith support
5
Pre-evaluation: How?
– Derpict subscription in house (e.g. for chemical structures,
less for concept searches)
6
Pre-evaluation: How?

7
Use original document in professional viewer
Evaluation
Pre-evaluation
(Final) answer set
Remove false drops
Further state of
the art
Evaluation
Relevant
documents
8
Evaluation: How?

Only when need to go beyond landscape search

Based on the original document

Depending on the search type
– FTO search  check claims
– Patentability search  check claims + description
9
Citation searching
Pre-evaluation
(Final) answer set
Remove false drops
Further state of
the art
Evaluation
Relevant
documents
Enhanced retrieval
10
Enhanced retrieval: Why?

Use the core set to
complete the picture
Backward
and forward
citations
– Can be more or less
relevant

Core set
(“seed”)
After evaluation, the
document set is also
valuable as a search tool
Company
11
Inventor
Delivery
Pre-evaluation
(Final) answer set
Remove false drops
Delivery
Further state of
the art
Evaluation
Relevant
documents
Enhanced retrieval
12
Delivery: How?

Search report = Word document

Attachments and comments depend on the search type
– Landscape search  WPI abstracts + interactive
patent map
100+
≈5
13
– FTO, patentability  detailed description of each
document and links to original documents with added
value
Pros and cons of multiple systems
Pros
 Keep control of the workflow and balance working time
with cost
 Compensate each other's weak point
Cons
 Lose track of what you’ve done (search terms, coding
systems…)
 Lose accuracy (patent numbers ambiguity, different
coverage, different definitions of patent families…)
14
Some final thoughts…
15

Dealing with patents is more complex but gives more
opportunities than dealing with non-patent literature

Evaluation and delivery are seen as two separate steps
(no computer-guided evaluation, no sharable
annotations…)

User seldom relies on support provided by the system for
the evaluation (ranking, clustering…)

Having in house patent repository opens wide
perspectives
Acknowledgments
16

Gerhard Fischer & Nicolas Lalyre for brainstorming

Syngenta colleagues for valuable comments

IRF & Matrixware for the invitation

All speakers and attendees for playing the game