Sources of inventive novelty

two patent classification schemas, same story

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

An essential feature of a modern patenting system is a classification schema for organizing, indexing and coding the technical information contained in a patent. Patent classification systems make it possible for patent examiners and prospective inventors to search through existing patents in order to find information pertinent to evaluating a patent application’s purported novelty. Patent classification systems also support the construction of a taxonomy for the various sources of inventive novelty embodied in patented inventions. Until 2013 the U.S. Patent Office utilized the United States Patent Classification system and since then it has used the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system; these two systems implement very different classification logics with the CPC aiming at greater granularity. Here we examine the extent to which the two patent classification systems generate similar historical narratives as to the sources of inventive novelty. Despite the differences in classification principles, common patterns are revealed regardless of which classification system is used to identify technologies. Invention is primarily a cumulative process where new inventions are developed from combining existing technologies. Refinements (the re-use of existing technologies) and combinations of previously existing technological functionalities predominate in the patent record, while inventions embodying previously unseen technologies are very rare. The rate at which inventions representing non-refinements have been introduced into the stock of inventions has kept pace with the generation of inventions representing refinements, thereby feeding the combinatorial process.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalScientometrics
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

patent
Patents and inventions
invention
Taxonomies
examiner
indexing
taxonomy
functionality
coding
narrative

Keywords

  • CPC
  • Inventive novelty
  • Novelty taxonomy
  • Patent classification systems
  • USPC

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Computer Science Applications
  • Library and Information Sciences

Cite this

@article{26a2466cd1af4806859fa3791e04bc31,
title = "Sources of inventive novelty: two patent classification schemas, same story",
abstract = "An essential feature of a modern patenting system is a classification schema for organizing, indexing and coding the technical information contained in a patent. Patent classification systems make it possible for patent examiners and prospective inventors to search through existing patents in order to find information pertinent to evaluating a patent application’s purported novelty. Patent classification systems also support the construction of a taxonomy for the various sources of inventive novelty embodied in patented inventions. Until 2013 the U.S. Patent Office utilized the United States Patent Classification system and since then it has used the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system; these two systems implement very different classification logics with the CPC aiming at greater granularity. Here we examine the extent to which the two patent classification systems generate similar historical narratives as to the sources of inventive novelty. Despite the differences in classification principles, common patterns are revealed regardless of which classification system is used to identify technologies. Invention is primarily a cumulative process where new inventions are developed from combining existing technologies. Refinements (the re-use of existing technologies) and combinations of previously existing technological functionalities predominate in the patent record, while inventions embodying previously unseen technologies are very rare. The rate at which inventions representing non-refinements have been introduced into the stock of inventions has kept pace with the generation of inventions representing refinements, thereby feeding the combinatorial process.",
keywords = "CPC, Inventive novelty, Novelty taxonomy, Patent classification systems, USPC",
author = "Jose Lobo and Deborah Strumsky",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11192-019-03102-2",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Scientometrics",
issn = "0138-9130",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sources of inventive novelty

T2 - two patent classification schemas, same story

AU - Lobo, Jose

AU - Strumsky, Deborah

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - An essential feature of a modern patenting system is a classification schema for organizing, indexing and coding the technical information contained in a patent. Patent classification systems make it possible for patent examiners and prospective inventors to search through existing patents in order to find information pertinent to evaluating a patent application’s purported novelty. Patent classification systems also support the construction of a taxonomy for the various sources of inventive novelty embodied in patented inventions. Until 2013 the U.S. Patent Office utilized the United States Patent Classification system and since then it has used the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system; these two systems implement very different classification logics with the CPC aiming at greater granularity. Here we examine the extent to which the two patent classification systems generate similar historical narratives as to the sources of inventive novelty. Despite the differences in classification principles, common patterns are revealed regardless of which classification system is used to identify technologies. Invention is primarily a cumulative process where new inventions are developed from combining existing technologies. Refinements (the re-use of existing technologies) and combinations of previously existing technological functionalities predominate in the patent record, while inventions embodying previously unseen technologies are very rare. The rate at which inventions representing non-refinements have been introduced into the stock of inventions has kept pace with the generation of inventions representing refinements, thereby feeding the combinatorial process.

AB - An essential feature of a modern patenting system is a classification schema for organizing, indexing and coding the technical information contained in a patent. Patent classification systems make it possible for patent examiners and prospective inventors to search through existing patents in order to find information pertinent to evaluating a patent application’s purported novelty. Patent classification systems also support the construction of a taxonomy for the various sources of inventive novelty embodied in patented inventions. Until 2013 the U.S. Patent Office utilized the United States Patent Classification system and since then it has used the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system; these two systems implement very different classification logics with the CPC aiming at greater granularity. Here we examine the extent to which the two patent classification systems generate similar historical narratives as to the sources of inventive novelty. Despite the differences in classification principles, common patterns are revealed regardless of which classification system is used to identify technologies. Invention is primarily a cumulative process where new inventions are developed from combining existing technologies. Refinements (the re-use of existing technologies) and combinations of previously existing technological functionalities predominate in the patent record, while inventions embodying previously unseen technologies are very rare. The rate at which inventions representing non-refinements have been introduced into the stock of inventions has kept pace with the generation of inventions representing refinements, thereby feeding the combinatorial process.

KW - CPC

KW - Inventive novelty

KW - Novelty taxonomy

KW - Patent classification systems

KW - USPC

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065399294&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065399294&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11192-019-03102-2

DO - 10.1007/s11192-019-03102-2

M3 - Article

JO - Scientometrics

JF - Scientometrics

SN - 0138-9130

ER -