|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Information Products Division Data Dissemination Trademark Daily XML Migration |
![[Skip standard page navigations] United States Patent and Trademark Office](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090115134050im_/http://www.uspto.gov/images/uspatop.gif){kind=small}
August 8, 2003
Trademark Daily XML Files - Weekly Status Report
There were 3 new inquiries since the last Weekly Status Report of August 1, 2003. Reference New Inquiries below.
Please note that the sequence of the Weekly Status Report has changed where new inquiries are listed first followed by outstanding items in reversed chronological order.
Inquiries can be made to: Ed Johnson at Ed.Johnson@uspto.gov - (703) 306-2621 or Marva Dubar at Marva.Dubar@uspto.gov - (703) 305-1669 or sent to OEIP@uspto.gov.
The following is a status update on outstanding items and new inquiries.
Inquiries that were previously considered outstanding and have been resolved will have the resolution in black and bold.
Any inquiries that require additional research and/or response are considered outstanding inquiries and will appear in red and italicized.
~~~New Inquiries:
Inquiry – 7/28/2003
During the week beginning 7/21/2003 the daily XML files were not available in a timely fashion on the USPTO’s FTP server. Could you provide us with an analysis of what happened, and whatever assurance level you have that this will not happen once in production?
During the week of 7/21/2003 the USPTO experienced a power failure causing the files to be unavailable in a timely fashion. The restoration of equipment once power was restored had to be handled in a precise sequence causing further delay in the availability of the data files. A power failure is a very rare occurrence.
The USPTO makes every effort to have the trademark daily XML files available on the FTP server each business day at 2:00 a.m. ET.
~~~Inquiry – 8/01/2003
I am concerned with the status of data items within the report:
- Two are listed as corrected as of 10 October 2003, two weeks after the cutoff of the weekly file.
- Five are listed as requiring some sort of management review/decision. At least one of these includes a potential DTD change to the files
reportedly frozen as of yesterday. No closure date has been posted on these items, no matter how long they have been on the report.
- Three more are still listed as requiring more investigation, including two related to the record selection process for inclusion from PTO internal systems on the files sent to outside vendors.
- Finally, two documentation issues are listed as either closed as of 29 August (a month after the DTDs are frozen), or, TTAB, with no date given.
What I am reading from this report is that, basically, I should simply accept whatever content happens to be on the daily files, because there is a certainty that known data errors will exist after you cutoff the weekly tape. That clearly puts the Trademark search companies at a disadvantage.
I would appreciate next week's report actually providing dates for the closure of the "need decision" items.
As described in the Transition Plan Milestones and Dates presented in the July 18, 2003 Trademark Weekly Status Report there are two versions of the DTD’s:
The “A” version frozen on July 31, 2003.
The “B” version to include the Madrid Protocol XML data elements. The “B” version will be released as soon as possible, but will remain in flux during the time period leading to implementation of the Madrid Protocol (November 2, 2003) as late-breaking international agreements and technical decisions are incorporated.
All outstanding items in this status report that require a DTD change would be applied to the “B” version of the DTD’s.
Every effort is being made by the appropriate areas to bring closure to all outstanding items in the status report. The implementation of the Madrid Protocol, however, is the driving force in getting many of these outstanding items resolved. It is likely that many of these issues will remain active throughout the Madrid Protocol implementation process.
~~~Inquiry – 8/01/2003
The XML for the proceedings 76186764-EXT and 76186764-EXA do not match the USPTO Board Information System Index (BISX) online system (http://bisxext.uspto.gov/).
The USPTO BISX system shows 2 prosecution entries for 76186764-EXT while in the XML there are 8 <prosecution-entry> entries.
The USPTO BISX system shows 6 prosecution entries for 76186764-EXA while in the XML there are 8 <prosecution-entry> entries.
The <prosecution-history> entries for these TTAB records seem to have been merged in the XML generation.
This inquiry will be investigated.
~~~Outstanding Inquiries:
Inquiry - 8/01/2003
Please Note: The Trademark Weekly Text File (TWTF) and Trademark Daily XML File (TDXF) Transition Plan Milestones and Dates were provided in the Weekly Status Report of July 18, 2003.
In response to inquiries received concerning the Transition Plan Milestones and Dates.
1. The following three DTD’s that currently make up the Trademark Daily XML Process will be frozen as July 31, 2003:
*Applications DTD Version 0.6, dated 03/06/2003
*Assignments DTD Version 0.2, dated 05/19/2003
*Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) DTD Version 0.8, dated 09/27/2002
2. All outstanding inquiries and new inquires identified below are being addressed and a resolution forthcoming.
~~~Inquiry – 7/29/2003
It has been reported that the following ranges of filed application images have never been present in the Trademark 24 Hour Box:
78/263478 through 267045
78/268100 through 269009
78/269515 through 270699
These images have all come through the Trademark 24 Hour Box.
~~~Inquiry - 7/23/2003
As per your document "Transition Plan Milestones and Dates" the TWTF is being discontinued October 1st, 2003. Will there be XML masters for each of the 3 file types (Trademark Applications, Assignments and Proceedings)? Will there be a XML monthly status file as we have now?
1. Retrospective XML masters files for each of the 3 file types will be available with the creation of the annual files at the completion of calendar year 2003.
2. The current Monthly Status File will be available after the TWTF file is discontinued. A subsequent conversion to XML will be announced.
~~~Inquiry - 7/17/2003
During the month of May there were 3 different totals of applications filed.
Trademark Weekly Text File (TWTF) had 19,421
TESS had 19,404
The Daily XML had 19,276
The totals for TWTF would have included records for April 27 – May 30, 2003. The TESS file would include incomplete application records that still required action(s). They would not appear in the Daily XML file until all action(s) are complete.
~~~Inquiry - 7/16/2003
Here is some more information/errors....
Processing XML File ==> xml\030620\tt030620.xml
start:: Wed Jul 16 12:05:31 EDT 2003
[Fatal Error] tt030620.xml:145:67181: An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was found in the element content of the document.
error: Parse error occurred - An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was found in the element content of the document.[Fatal Error] tt030621.xml:144:390195: An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was found in the element content of the document.
error: Parse error occurred - An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was found in the element content of the document.Processing XML File ==> xml\030625\tt030625.xml
start:: Wed Jul 16 12:14:58 EDT 2003
[Fatal Error] tt030625.xml:141:728318: An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was found in the element content of the document.
error: Parse error occurred - An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was found in the element content of the document.Processing XML File ==> xml\030626\tt030626.xml
start:: Wed Jul 16 13:05:46 EDT 2003
[Fatal Error] tt030626.xml:143:292294: An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was found in the element content of the document.
error: Parse error occurred - An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was found in the element content of the document.All of the characters 0 through 31 and character 127 are nonprinting control characters. With the exception of characters 09, 10, and 13, (Ox09, Ox0A, and Ox0D) the others may NOT appear anywhere in an XML document.
A correction is awaiting official authorization to be implemented and will not require a change to the DTD’s.
~~~Inquiry - 7/14/2003
Is it possible to put in more line breaks into this file. The file is unable to be loaded into a normal text editor due to the line lengths (this is not true for the other xml files). Here is an example:
tt030701.xml, length of the longest line: 1309721, new line count: 252
A correction is awaiting official notification to be implemented.
~~~Inquiry - 7/11/2003
The following documentation still does not exist. (problem discussed in June 13th status document).
Trademark Assignments XML DTD Element Documentation (Trademark-Assignments-v0.2-2003-05-19)
The Trademark Assignments XML Documentation to be updated and available August 29 2003.
~~~Inquiry – 7/11/2003
On April 29, 2003 the Trademark 24 Hour Box (An electronic file containing applications filed for a 24 hour period) had a format change resulting in not all of the information being captured. This change was subsequently brought to our attention by an external customer.
Effective with the July 23, 2003 filing date the format of applications in the Trademark 24 Hour Box will return to the original format that includes the serial number and barcode. All files names have also been corrected.
Note: Beginning with the Trademark 24 Hour Box dated August 4, 2003 all applications will have the correction applied.
~~~Inquiry - 7/09/2003
We are seeing increasing issues in the timeliness of Trademark image delivery. For example, we have trademarks that have filing dates as of July 18 & July 19 and did not receive images on the image tape shipments on June 25 or July 2. Additionally, these images are available on TARR. Please review this issue.
Another example of this behavior is the following marks:
78267734
78266855
They have filing dates of June 26 and we did not receive the images in the July 2 or July 9 image tapes. Theses images are also available on TARR.
An investigation indicated that the above 2 examples did appear in the image tape of July 8, 2003. As the Madrid Protocol is implemented the timeliness of image delivery should be improved.
~~~Inquiry - 7/09/2003
The response that was included in the June 13, 2003 document relating to the TWTF entry numbers in the 400-599 range is not understood. You've provided us with no information as to the entity numbers of the parties that were given "assignee" and "assignor" status. The single example also ignores the fact that a significant proportion of the records that have a 400-599 entry number also have two additional parties. Often A and B merged and the resulting entity is re-named. Unless a more detailed answer can be provided, it would seem that the elimination of an intermediate type causes loss of data.
The elimination of the entry numbers 400-599 DID NOT cause a loss of data. Any records maintained in the previous database with an entry number between 400-599 were migrated to the new database. Previously assignment records with an entry number between 400-599 also had a record with at least one entry number between 1-399 and at least one entry number between 600-999. When the data was migrated a record with an entry between 400-599 caused an assignee record and an assignor record to be created.
For example assume that a record in the TWTF file looked similar to the following example (for example purposes only - only entry number and name elements are shown in this example:
Reel and Frame 4444/0001
ASGN record type
Entry number 001 – Smith Company
Entry number 002 – Jones Company
Entry number 400 – Smith and Jones Company
Entry number 600 – Smith and Jones IncorporatedIt would now show in the TDXF Assignment file like (for example purposes only – tags associated with the <Assignor>, <Assignee> elements have been omitted from the example only.
<Assignor>
<Person-or-Organization-Name>Smith Company</Person-or-Organization-Name>…
<Person-or-Organization-Name>Jones Company</Person-or-Organization-Name>…
<Person-or-Organization-Name>Smith and Jones Company
</Assignor><Assignee>
<Person-or-Organization-Name>Smith and Jones Company</Person-or-Organization-Name>…
<Person-or-Organization-Name>Smith and Jones Incorporated/<Person-or-Organization-Name>…
</Assignee>Previously all owner data was maintained within one table and entry number was used to distinguish the type of owner record. When the owner data was migrated “assignor” records were migrated to one table and “assignee” records were migrated to another table. Owner records that (customer references as “an intermediate type” had an entry number between 400-599 were placed into both tables. This is how the owner data was migrated to the new database – entry number is no longer required or maintained.
~~~Inquiry - 7/03/2003.
Poorly formatted addresses in XML
You are trying to fit unstructured data into a structured format, I propose you add an address-2 tag to hold the data in cases like this.
<proceeding-address>
<identifier>357358</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>DOUGLAS W SPRINKLE</name>
<orgname>GIFFORD KRASS GROH SPRINKLE ANDERSON & C</orgname> THIS WAS CUT OFF SHOULD BE<orgname>GIFFORD KRASS GROH SPRINKLE ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.</orgname>
<address-1>280 N OLD WOODWARD SUITE 400</address-1>
<city>BIRMINGHAM MICHIG</city>
<state>AN</state> THIS IS THE TAIL END OF THE ABOVE TAG
<postcode>48009</postcode>
</proceeding-address><proceeding-address>
<identifier>384315</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>EDGAR A. ZARINS</name>
<orgname>MASCO CORPORATION</orgname>
<address-1>21001 VAN BORN ROAD</address-1>
<city>TAYLOR MICHIG</city>
<state>AN</state> THIS IS THE TAIL END OF THE ABOVE TAG
<postcode>48180</postcode>
</proceeding-address><proceeding-address>
<identifier>387621</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>JOHN R GARBER</name>
<orgname>COOPER & DUNHAM LLP</orgname>
<address-1>1185 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS</address-1>
<city>NEW YORK NEW YO</city>
<state>RK</state> THIS IS THE TAIL END OF THE ABOVE TAG
<postcode>10036</postcode>
</proceeding-address><proceeding-address>
<identifier>367755</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>STEVEN A. GIBSON</name>
<orgname>SANTORO DRIGGS WALCH KEARNEY ET AL</orgname>
<address-1>400 S FOURTH ST 3RD FL</address-1>
<city>LAS VEGAS NEVA</city>
<state>DA</state> THIS IS THE TAIL END OF THE ABOVE TAG
<postcode>89101</postcode>
</proceeding-address>You aren't validating the state code field
<proceeding-address>
<identifier>292989</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>SALLY M. ABEL</name>
<orgname>FENWICK & WEST LLP</orgname>
<address-1>TWO PALO ALTO SQUARE</address-1>
<city>PALTO ALTO</city>
<state>C</state> INVALID STATE CODE
<postcode>94306</postcode>
</proceeding-address><proceeding-address>
</proceeding-address>
<proceeding-address>
<identifier>298457</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>KRISTI A. ZENTNER</name>
<orgname>FAFINSKI AND WALLRICH, P.A.</orgname>
<address-1>STE. 100 DUNNE MANSION 337 OAK GROVE STREET</address-1>
<city>MINNEAPOLIS</city>
<state>M</state> INVALID STATE CODE
<postcode>55403</postcode>
</proceeding-address>What code list are these from?
<proceeding-address>
<identifier>391698</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>SUSAN UPTON DOUGLASS</name>
<orgname>FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN & ZISSU, P.C.</orgname>
<address-1>866 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA AT FIRST AVENUE & 48TH STREET</address-1>
<city>NEW YORK</city>
<state>N7</state> INVALID STATE CODE
<postcode>10017</postcode>
</proceeding-address><proceeding-address>
<identifier>369899</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>PETER L. COSTAS</name>
<orgname>PEPE & HAZARD LLP</orgname>
<address-1>225 ASYLUM STREET</address-1>
<city>HARTFORD</city>
<state>CN</state> INVALID STATE CODE
<postcode>06103</postcode>
</proceeding-address><proceeding-address>
<identifier>386393</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>ROLAND W. BAGGOTT III</name>
<orgname>THE BAGGOTT LAW OFFICES, L.L.C.</orgname>
<address-1>1316 CHRISTOPHER COURT</address-1>
<city>METATRIE</city>
<state>LO</state> INVALID STATE CODE
<postcode>70001-3804</A correction has been presented to the data management area. Upon approval it will be implemented.
~~~Inquiry - 7/02/2003
In an email dated May 21, 2003 'TRADEMARK DAILY XML MAY 20, 2003 ANNOUNCEMENT' an issue was raised and answered about TTAB proceeding-address fields. The answer supplied by the PTO states that the address-information contained currently in the TWTF/PARC Correspondent Information would populate the address-information (proceeding-address).
So to clarify what this means is we will no longer receive address information for particular owners within the TTAB action. This seems like we may be taking a step backwards with the XML feed. Using Proceeding Number 92042153 which is included in the weekly TWTF of July 1 2003 and the daily file of tt030624 as an example:
In the TWTF full address information including the Correspondent for both parties included in this action.
In the daily XML file we only receive the (party) name and orgname for role-code = D (where the orgname is overflow of the name) and the address-information of the type-code = C. Also for (party) name for role-code = P and the address-information for type-code = C.
With XML we are loosing the address information of the specific parties involved.
This is indeed how it was stated that it would be, but we just wanted to point out that the TWTF contains more data elements which are being lost with the XML feeds.
This problem was investigated and owner information is maintained in the application file/application DTD. The plaintiff name and address, defendant’s name and address is maintained in the TTAB file/TTAB DTD. If the transaction does not meet the selection criteria for the application file, the application record will not be pulled. The criteria for excluding data from the Trademark Daily XML file must be further investigated.
~~~Inquiry – 6/20/2003
The following analysis was conducted by our Database Maintenance staff. It's conclusion, that updates have been made that are reflected on TARR but were never included as updates on the weekly tapes is disturbing. Please respond as to how this discrepancy came to pass, and if possible, some estimate of how frequently this may occur:
We recently ran across a case of a Federal trademark record that contained affidavit information (viewable on TARR) that was not present in our record. Upon analysis, it was determined that the information on filing of said affidavit was never supplied to us on our weekly tape. The record in question was registration 2139349. When viewed in TARR, the record indicates that a Section 8 and 15 has been filed. Our record does not contain such an indication.
Normally, these filings are indicated via flags in the TWTF GENX record. The flags in question (FS8F and FS15F) should indicate T when a filing has occurred. Indications are that although the Sec. 8 & 15 were filed in March, we have not received a record update from the PTO for this record since February of 1998, when the status was changed to Renewed. In the prosecution history in TARR, the filing is indicated (2003-03-20). We have inferred from this discrepancy that not every entry in the PTO's record 'prosecution history' is recorded in our data.
For purposes of equivalency between TARR/PTO data and our current data, it is important for us to ascertain why this filing didn't trigger a record update in TWTF. Is there a reason why we didn't receive this filing?
After investigation it has been determined that the Trademark Weekly Text File and also the Trademark Daily XML file extracts data according to: 1. What is present in the Trademark weekly OG. 2. New Applications and 3. Modifications to existing records.
TARR contains everything that pertains to all Trademark transactions. The criteria for excluding data from the Trademark Daily XML file must be further investigated.
~~~Inquiry - 6/09/2003
After analyzing the most recent Trademark Daily XML TTAB DTD related data files, we found the following issues:
1. The <filing-date> field (which is part of the <proceeding-entry> tag) does not always have the correct value. Here are some examples of this issue:
a. For the Proceeding Number 92042024, which can be found in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, the value of the DT-FIL field (which is located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "20030310". In the TTAB data file called TT030529.xml, which contains the most up-to-date version of this TTAB Proceeding, the value of the <filing-date> field is "20030529". This is incorrect since this Proceeding was filed on March 10th, 2003.
b. For the Proceeding Number 92042025, which can be found in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, the value of the DT-FIL field (which is located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "20030430". In the TTAB data file called TT030529.xml, which contains the most up-to-date version of this TTAB Proceeding, the value of the <filing-date> field is "20030529". This is incorrect since this Proceeding was filed on April 30th, 2003.
c. For the Proceeding Number 92042026, which can be found in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, the value of the DT-FIL field (which is located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "20030424". In the TTAB data file called TT030529.xml, which contains the most up-to-date version of this TTAB Proceeding, the value of the <filing-date> field is "20030529". This is incorrect since this Proceeding was filed on April 24th, 2003.
This was reported in the 6/27/2003 Status Report as being corrected. A correction is planned to take place October 10, 2003.
2. The <status-update-date> field (which is part of the <proceeding-entry> tag) does not always have the most up-to-date value after the value of the <status-code> field (which is also part of the <proceeding-entry> tag) changes. Here are some examples of this issue:
a. For the Proceeding Number 91154190, which can be found in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, the value of the DT-STAT field (which is located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "20030529" and the value of the STAT field (which is also located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "9" (Terminated). In the TTAB data file called TT030528.xml, the value of the <status-update-date> field is "20030103" and the value of the <status-code> field is "2" (Pending) for this TTAB Proceeding. In the TTAB data file called TT030529.xml, which contains the most up-to-date version of this TTAB Proceeding, the value of the <status-code> field is changed to "9" (Terminated), but the value of the <status-update-date> field remains the same ("20030103") for some reason. Instead, this field should have the value "20030529" just like in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file.
b. For the Proceeding Number 91154593, which can be found in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, the value of the DT-STAT field (which is located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "20030529" and the value of the STAT field (which is also located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "9" (Terminated). In the TTAB data file called TT030528.xml, the value of the <status-update-date> field is "20030122" and the value of the <status-code> field is "2" (Pending) for this TTAB Proceeding. In the TTAB data file called TT030529.xml, which contains the most up-to-date version of this TTAB Proceeding, the value of the <status-code> field is changed to "9" (Terminated), but the value of the <status-update-date> field remains the same ("20030122") for some reason. Instead, this field should have the value "20030529" just like in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file.
The value of the <status-update-date> is in error. A correction is planned to take place October 10, 2003.
~~~Inquiry – 6/06/2003
In reviewing the country codes for each of the 3 XML files and discovered the following:
*Trademark-Applications XML
Uses 3 digit code from TWTF file
*Trademark-Assignments XML
Uses no codes at all, they expand all codes (Spelling out countries)
*Trademark-Proceedings XML
Uses officially designated country as prescribed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.3
Each DTD is currently maintained within the appropriate area of responsibility and uses country codes and names differently.
These differences have been presented to management and a decision to adhere to the WIPO Standard ST. 3 is being investigated.
If a decision is made to use the WIPO Standard ST. 3 changes would be required to have a separate field for the country code and a separate field for the state code.
~~~Inquiry 6/05/2003
The Trademark Daily XML Process Documentation for Trademark Assignments XML DTD points to the old version (0.1) and not the current (0.2) version.
The Trademark Assignments XML Documentation to be updated and available August 29, 2003.
~~~Inquiry 6/04/2003
Documentation
Our review of the "Trademark Trial and Appeal Board XML DTD Element Mapping Documentation [v .8]" (the most recent version that we are aware of) has found the following problems:
XML Elements - At least four elements that are included in the DTD and in the files that we have received -- <code-type>, <data-available-code>, <day-in-location>, and <int-attorney-number> are not listed as XML Elements and are completely excluded from this document.
TWTF Elements - Despite the use of the word "mapping" in the title, there is none. Most of the items/terminology in the "TWTF Elements" bear no relation to the TWTF document whatsoever. The TWTF includes none of the following terms or equivalent data elements or many others -- Proceeding Information, Proceeding Entry, Proceeding Type, Role, or Country. What appears in the second column of that document is merely an explanation of the XML tag.
Descriptions -- This column contains the only explanatory information in the document. Unhappily much of it is incorrect or incomplete, making it generally unreliable.
<status-text> is described as the literal that corresponds to the <status-code>. It is, in fact, nothing of the sort, but rather a variety of notes and notations like the following:
A IS 124817
ADDRESS NOT CHANGED; NEED REV & P/A
cl 9, 45, 41, 35
CONSOL W/91125739 & 91152596. NOT PARENT.
EXHIBIT IS ATTACHED TO THIS PAPER AS EXHIBIT A.
EXHIBITS
GRANTED UNTIL 01/26/03
HOLD 30
KL
PARENT
PLEASE PREPARE COMMISSIONER'S ORDER
READY FOR FINAL DECISION
SERVICE BY PUBThe stated maximum length of data bears no resemblance to the data that actually appears. For example <name> data that is described as "250 position" field is truncated at 40 characters.
The <country> codes in use are not the 2 position WIPO Standard ST.3 codes that were previously furnished us, but the 3 position FIPS codes that have always been used in the TWTF.
The definition for <orgname> includes two elements (appearing below in bold type) that simply do not exist.
Organization and orgname are overflow fields for the Party Name. Instead of saying Party Name Line 1, Party Name Line 2 and Party Name Line 3, we use Name, Company, and Organization to help our users divide/organize party names the (sic) are extremely long.The documentation for TTAB is being properly updated and will also include the proper mapping back to the TWTF process.
~~~Inquiry - 5/23/2003
Problems exist over the use of the 'Section Sign' character inside the TTAB xml dated May 15, 2003. I did an UNIX command "od -hc" to dump the contents of the file so I could see what you are sending it as (247) which is causing the SAX parser to error. I think the character should be §.
In XML, there are only five predefined character entities, as follows:
Character Entity Reference Decimal Hexadecimal
< < < <
> > > >
& & & &
" " " "
' ' ' '
Substituting a character entity reference for a character is REQUIRED by W3C for < and & in all cases where these characters are not markup. It's good practice to do it for the other three as well. That means, wherever these five characters are found in content or in comments, they should be replaced with the corresponding character entity.
Entity declarations will be made for other characters that are included in the trademark xml data according to the W3C Entity Reference recommendation.
Please Note: The above characters entities are awaiting official authorization to be implemented and will not require a change to the DTD’s.
~~~If you have any questions or need additional information please contact one of the following individuals:
Ed Johnson Marva Dubar Information Products Division Information Dissemination Data Dissemination Branch Systems Division (703) 306-2621 (703) 305-1669 (703) 306-2737 Fax (703) 308-5164 Fax Ed.Johnson@uspto.gov Marva.Dubar@uspto.gov
| HOME
| INDEX | SEARCH | SYSTEM STATUS | BUSINESS CENTER | NEWS&NOTICES | |