Re: [PIUG List] search problem, CASRN

Wendy Warr provided me wirh Ambinter's website and e-mail information.&n= bsp; Ambinter responded to  my request saying that the weird numbers w= ere not their numbers either.  So far no one has been able to identify= the number format.  I am extremely upset about what is disappearing p= rior art.  The people at CAS who are involved with Chemcats couldn't i= dentify the format either but didn't seem bothered by the fact that the inf= ormation hd come from their database originally and was no longer there-

Can we, as searchers, allow this prior art to disappear???

Sandy Burcham

-----Original Message-----
From: Sara.K.Davis@gsk.com Sent: Jan 16, 2008 8:41 AM
To: "PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox"
Cc: piug_discussion_list@v2.listbox.com=
Subject: Re: [PIUG List] search problem, CASRN


The issue here is tha= t compounds appear in the CHEMCATS database because they are being offered = for sale, are retrieved by a structure search, are cited by an examiner in = a search report solely by the CHEMCATS accession number - and then disappea= r from CHEMCATS because an updated version of the catalog no longer contain= s the compounds.  Searching on the CHEMCATS accession number, even if = the number is provided in the correct format, produces no answers.  I = have run into the same problem of trying to retrieve information from exami= ner search reports where only the CHEMCATS number is provided and the compo= und to which it corresponded is no longer in the database.

CAS's position, when I asked them about it, seeme= d to be that they simply loaded the catalogs, and if a compound was no long= er available in a catalog, it could no longer be retrieved.  I realize= there is probably no commercial motivation for CAS to provide some means o= f accessing this deleted material, but the current situation creates a diff= icult position for people trying to respond to patent office actions.

In fact, I find the practice used by s= ome examiners of identifying cited references solely by accession numbers f= rom a subscription service, e.g. a CA abstract number, WPI accession number= , or CHEMCATS number, to be less than desirable.  As long as the infor= mation is still available, people with STN access, WPI subscriptions, etc. = can retrieve the information at nominal cost, but not everybody has easy, o= r cheap, access to these sources.

  - Sara Davis

"BOB BUNTROCK" <bu= ntrock16@verizon.net> 15-Jan-2008 18:42

&nb= sp; To "PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox" <p= iug_discussion_list@v2.listbox.com> cc Subject Re: [PIUG List] search problem, CASRN<= /FONT>

The existence of CAS Registry Numbers with no citations to = published
literature has been periodically discussed on the Chem Inform= ation List
(CHMINF-L) and in publications by me and CAS.  Potentia= lly, there are
several reasons.  "Phantom CASRN" often appeared in= the early days of the CA
Registry System, typically when the preparati= on of polymers were patented,
often from previously undescribed monomer= s for which no other  data or
information was provided.  Pers= onally, I called these compounds "bottle off
my shelf" or "Nya, Nya, I = have some and you don't" (not being anything even
resembling a patent a= ttorney or agent, I get a little sarcastic at times;
sorry 'bout that).=  It is a frustrating situation, especially when, even
after sever= al years or even decades, these CASRN are unique listings in the
REG fi= le, still with no citations to any other publication.

-- Bob Buntroc= k
Orono, ME

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthews, Mic= hael: #CIPO - OPIC" <Matthews.Michael@ic.gc.ca>
To: "PIUG Discussi= on List @ Listbox" <piug_discussion_list@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Tue= sday, January 15, 2008 11:02 AM
Subject: RE: [PIUG List] search problem<= BR>

This indeed will be a recurring problem.  The fact that the= re is a registry
number for each compound provided by CAS does provide = evidence that the
compound was made.  There have been other instan= ces where I have found
matches from a substructure search in CAS Regist= ry database, but there has
been no citation associated with the compoun= ds.  Speaking with CAS about
these instances, I was told there is = a possibility that a compound was made
by a company and they received a= registry number for the compound; however,
they do not want to disclos= e any information on the focus of their current
research.  By havi= ng the compound registered with CAS, this prevents
competitors from obt= aining patents on the compounds, without disclosing who
it is doing the= research in this area.  I know in the past here at CIPO,
these CA= S Registry numbers are still cited against the applicant.

I hope thi= s helps.

Michael


Michael Matthews
Organic Chemistry Se= archer/
Chercheur de la Chimie Organique
CIPO/OPIC Patents/BrevetsOrganic Chemistry/Chimie Organique
50 Victoria St., Place du Portage,Phase 1 - 1408A
Gatineau, Québec
Canada
K1A 0C9
Tél= ./Tel.:  (819) 997-8134
Courriel/Email : Matthews.Michael@ic.gc.ca<= BR>

-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Burcham [mailto:cass12= 3@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:42 AM
To: Matthew= s, Michael: #CIPO - OPIC; PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox
Subject: RE: [P= IUG List] search problem

Michael - thanks very much for your reply -= I'll try that - however , the
larger question of retrievability really= bothers me - if there are cpds
cited as prior art by examiners (or any= one else) there should be a way to
retreive them even if they are no lo= nger available - and depending on the
reason for unavailability - shoul= d they have been in a catalog in the first
place?

-----Original = Message-----
>From: "Matthews, Michael: #CIPO - OPIC" <Matthews.Mi= chael@ic.gc.ca>
>Sent: Jan 15, 2008 10:36 AM
>To: Sandy Burc= ham <cass123@earthlink.net>, "PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox"
>= ;<piug_discussion_list@v2.listbox.com>
>Subject: RE: [PIUG List= ] search problem
>
>Hi Sandy,
>
>This concerns me, = as I work at CIPO as an organic chemistry searcher on
>prior art. &n= bsp;What may help is the supplier name and entry date provided in
>t= he CAS Registry entry.  The Supplier is "Ambinter" and this particular=
>registry number you gave was entered on August 16, 2002.  It = may help then,
>to find a catalogue from Ambinter from the year 2002= ; here you will
>probably find your compound.  As for the numbe= r format, I have not been
>able to find this number in the CAS Regis= try database, nor on Ambinter's
>web site.  Even searching the = structure at Ambinter there are not hits,
>this is probably because = they no longer supply the compound(s).  I would
>contact them a= nd request a copy of their 2002 catalogue (which I'm sure
>they must= have somewhere).
>
>Good luck and keep me posted!
>
&= gt;Michael
>
>
>Michael Matthews
>Organic Chemistry= Searcher/
>Chercheur de la Chimie Organique
>CIPO/OPIC Patents= /Brevets
>Organic Chemistry/Chimie Organique
>50 Victoria St., = Place du Portage,
>Phase 1 - 1408A
>Gatineau, Québec
&g= t;Canada
>K1A 0C9
>Tél./Tel.:  (819) 997-8134
>= Courriel/Email : Matthews.Michael@ic.gc.ca
>
>
>-----Orig= inal Message-----
>From: Sandy Burcham [mailto:cass123@earthlink.net]=
>Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:27 AM
>To: PIUG Discussion = List @ Listbox
>Subject: [PIUG List] search problem
>
>He= lp!  In an International search  report from 2004, a list of rele= vant
>compounds were reported retrieved from Chemcats having a weird= and
>untraceable order number format.
>
>the format is:= 094_12494-10292-103 (with different numbers for each
>entry. ) One = cpd was given the following registry number 444054-63-1
>correspondi= ng to 094_12313-11057-104. this cpd is in registry but no longer
>in= Chemcats although the registry entry identifies it as being in chemcats. <= BR>>I sent this information to CA and was informed that as new catalogs = are
>entered and some cpds removed retrievability disappears.  = However, no one
>at CA could identify the order number format.  = ;I have over 30 of these cpds
>to idnetify.  Can any of you hel= p me withthe format?  And also, once these
>cpds are identified= as prior art, shouldn't they be retrievable - perhaps
>in another d= atabase of Removed cpds?
>
>Help! Please! Sandy Burcham
>= 610-630-6616
>cass123@earthlink.net


----------------------= ---------------------
--------------------------------------------------= ---------------------
PIUG List owner: Patent Information Users' Group I= nc. (R), http://
www.piug.org
PIUG List rules and guidelines: http://= www.piug.org/list.php
PIUG List admin: piug_discussion_list-owner(at)v2(= dot)listbox(dot)com
PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox
Modify Your Subscr= iption: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&
Unsubscribe Now: http://v2.l=

---

---

PIUG List owner: Patent Information Users' Group Inc. (R), http://www.piug.org
PIUG List rules= and guidelines: h= ttp://www.piug.org/list.php
PIUG List admin: piug_discussion_list-ow= ner(at)v2(dot)listbox(dot)com

PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox | Modify Y= our Subscription | Unsubscribe Now

---

---

PIUG List owner: Patent Information Users' Group Inc. (R), http://www.piug.org
PIUG List rules and guidelines= : http://www.piug.org/list.php=
PIUG List admin: piug_discussion_list-owner(at)v2(dot)listbox(dot)com =

PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now