Products and Services > Trademark Daily XML Files - Weekly Status Report

October 24, 2003

Trademark Daily XML Files - Weekly Status Report

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New This Week:

1. There were 3 new inquiries since the last Weekly Status Report. Reference New Inquiries below.

2. A Trademark Daily XML Documentation “A” version has been placed on the TDXF DTD's, Documentation and Sample Data page that contains the documentation of all 3 daily “A” DTD’s when they were frozen July 31, 2003.

3. A Trademark Daily XML Documentation “B” version has been placed on the TDXF DTD's, Documentation and Sample Data page that contains the documentation of all 3 daily “B” DTD’s as they are updated to accommodate the Madrid Protocol.

NOTE: The Trademark Applications Documentation – V.10 “B” has been included. The Trademark Assignments Documentation and the Trademark TTAB documentation will be included as they are updated.

4. The Trademark-Applications-v0.10-2003-10-10.dtd “B” is replacing the Trademark-Applications-v0.9-2003-10-06.dtd “B” on the TDXF DTD's, Documentation and Sample Data page.

5. Trademark-Applications-B-Sample-Data-102403.xml is being added to the
TDXF DTD's, Documentation and Sample Data page.

6. Sent as an e-mail attachment is a file “24HrBox.zip" that contains sample files as described below. This sample data is the appearance of the Daily Trademark Application Image 24 Hour Box beginning November 2, 2003. Any inquiries or requests for additional copies can be addressed to Chris Leithiser – (703) 306-2622 or Ed Johnson – (703) 306-2621.

The 24HrBox.zip contains 3,975,816 bytes and the following files:

Trademark Application Image 24 Hour Box TEST files that include DTDs, sample XML, and JPG images:

There is one DTD Version 1.0 for electronic Trademark Applications (79 Series Code) submitted through the International Bureau (IB).

There are 5 DTDs TEAS Version 2.1 for the 5 different types of electronic Trademark Applications submitted through TEAS (78 Series Code).

There are 5 DTDs TEAS Version 2.11 for the 5 different types of electronic Trademark Applications submitted through TEAS (78 Series Code).

NOTE: From November 2, 2003 through November 16, 2003 both TEAS Version 2.1 XML and TEAS Version 2.11 XML may appear in the 24 Hour Box files. After November 15, 2003 only TEAS Version 2.11 XML will appear in the 24 Hour Box Files.

~~~

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 new inquiries and outstanding items.

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 – 10/21/2003

There has been an element introduced called <application-information> which requires the following definition in the DTD.

OLD VERSION (v0.9-2003-10-06)

<!ELEMENT trademark-applications-daily (version, data-processed-in, file-segments*)>

NEW VERSION

<!ELEMENT trademark-applications-daily (version, application-information)>
<!ELEMENT application-information (data-processed-in?, file-segments*)>

A correction is present in the Trademark-Applications-v0.10-2003-10-10 “B” that has been placed on TDXF DTD's, Documentation and Sample Data page.

~~~

Inquiry – 10/21/2003

After reviewing the information sent to us over the last couple of weeks on the Madrid Protocol and have a couple of questions:

1. It appears from the sample data you plan to have a new series 79. If this is correct, will the 79 series be used for a request for extension under protection of Madrid Protocol from the U.S. application going out; as well as a record filed with the International Bureau (IB) coming into the U.S.?
   
2. In TICRs will we receive the IB generated applications prior to January 2nd?
   
3. Is there a table for the international-status-code? If so can you provide this to us?

These questions will be addressed and answers will appear in next week's Status Report dated October 31, 2003.
~~~

Inquiry – 10/21/2003

The Trademark-Applications-Daily DTD you have available for download (Stand Alone) doesn't match the one that is inside the sample data. Just thought I'd let you know. Obviously the one with the sample data is the most current.

The Trademark-Applications-v0.10-2003-10-10 “B” has been placed on TDXF DTD's, Documentation and Sample Data page.

~~~

Outstanding Inquiries:

Inquiry – 10/16/2003

I think the following change is necessary to the Trademark-Applications-Daily DTD as the international-registration
section can't be mandatory. I have also made <first-refusal-in> non-mandatory based on your sample data file.

<!ELEMENT international-registration (international-registration-number,
international-registration-date, international-publication-date,
international-renewal-date, auto-protection-date,
international-death-date?, international-status-code,
international-status-date, priority-claimed-in, priority-claimed-date?,
first-refusal-in?)*>

To be investigated and reported in next week’s Status Report October 24, 2003.

Inquiry – 10/14/2003

I am deeply concerned that the success of that effort is predicated on the delay of accurate data to Trademark search vendors. We are being placed at a severe disadvantage in our responsibility to provide our clients with the most accurate data available from the PTO.

To recap:

1). The Madrid daily XML files will not be available to vendors until 1 January 2004, two months after the PTO will be processing the data.

Production of the Madrid daily XML files will begin January 2004. Weekly test data of the production environment will be available begin November 3, 2003.

2). Bug fixes in the production daily XML files, long scheduled for 10 October, were abruptly withdrawn, on 10 October, with no new release date given. This withdrawal came one week after the 3 October status reported.

“Work continues towards many achievements for October 10, 2003."

The Madrid Protocol is currently the driving force behind this entire effort to transition to a daily process including any software maintenance updates. Priority effort is being placed on meeting the deadline for this implementation, resolution of other problems will occur as soon as possible thereafter.

3). On 2 November, the weekly Image tapes we subscribe to containing images for Registrations, Applications and E-submissions will no longer be produced. In their place will be a series of XML files. To date, there is neither documentation about these XML files nor test data.

DTD’s, documentation and test files for the appearance of the new Trademark 24 Hour Box are being established and will be available October 24, 2003. In the meantime the trademark images
currently being provided weekly on 3480 tape cartridges (B6, B7 and B8) will be available through Tuesday, December 30, 2003.

I don't see that we will get any relief on the first two issues. I strongly urge that the decision to halt the weekly production of the B6, B7 and B8 image tapes on 2 November be reversed, and that those tapes be kept current through the end of 2003. I would expect this to be in parallel with the daily XML updates, so that we can transfer our production systems to that Image data once we have finally seen the new data format.

See answer to 3 above.
~~~

Inquiry – 10/9/2003

The TTAB daily file continues to contain illegal characters. I thought this issue would be resolved by now. Here is an excerpt from my log: 2003-10-09 02:09:14 tt031008.xml error: Parse error occurred - An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was found in the element ...

A correction is awaiting official authorization to be implemented and will not require a change to the DTD’s and should take place during the next maintenance update release.
~~~

Inquiry – 10/2/2003

As of the Weekly status report of 26 September, there are 15 inquiries
being tracked. Of these 15:

3 are listed as Under Investigation
1 was too early (DTD B related)
1 "procedures must be worked out and furnished"
3 to be corrected 10 October
5 waiting on various management decisions
2 documentation updates

Are the three listed for 10 October still on target?

The 5 management decision items appear to have been carried for at least 2 months - no decisions yet?

Are any of these items planned for correction within the DTD B definitions, still to be defined, and if so, will they be tracked within the DTD B change document?

The Madrid Protocol is the driving force behind any changes and outstanding inquiries. As the Madrid Protocol implementation date (November 2, 2003) draws closer resources are focused meeting requirements for that project. The Madrid Protocol continues to be in a testing environment. Any changes and outstanding inquiries including management decisions will be made to the Madrid Protocol DTD “B” versions. When these “B” version DTD’s are available for dissemination a Condition Paper identifying all changes will be provided.

Work continues towards many achievements for October 10, 2003.

NOTE: Due to additional changes the maintenance update release has been extended beyond October 10, 2003.

The updated Assignment DTD documentation has been included in the TDXF DTD's, Documentation, and Sample Data page October 3, 2003.

The appearance of the trademark images that will appear in the Trademark 24 Hour Box beginning November 2, 2003, has just been finalized. Reference the outstanding inquiry dated 8/25/2003.

Inquiry – 9/18/2003:

In the XML Trademark Applicants file dated August 28, 2003 (ap030828.xml) a problem has been found with the data.

The problem pertains to serial number 71555902 and the status-date element in the XML.

On the flat file we received the status date (DTSTAT) came thorough as
20030828, where as on the XML file it came in as <status-
date>19920414</status-date>. On your web site, the date using the TARR
system shows up as 2003-08-28. You can view the record with this link:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=71555902

I am wondering why the difference in dates? Attached below is the case-file-header record from the XML file (the status-date is in bold):

<case-file-header>
<amend-to-register-date>00000000</amend-to-register-date>
<cancellation-date>00000000</cancellation-date>
<filing-date>19470912</filing-date>
<published-for-opposition-date>00000000</published-for-opposition-date>
<republished-12c-date>00000000</republished-12c-date>
<registration-date>19520318</registration-date>
<status-date>19920414</status-date>
<principal-register-amended-in>F</principal-register-amended-in>
<supplemental-register-amended-in>F</supplemental-register-amended-in>
<trademark-in>T</trademark-in>
<collective-trademark-in>F</collective-trademark-in>
<service-mark-in>F</service-mark-in>
<collective-service-mark-in>F</collective-service-mark-in>
<collective-membership-mark-in>F</collective-membership-mark-in>
<certification-mark-in>F</certification-mark-in>
<cancellation-pending-in>F</cancellation-pending-in>
<published-concurrent-in>F</published-concurrent-in>
<concurrent-use-in>F</concurrent-use-in>
<concurrent-use-proceeding-in>F</concurrent-use-proceeding-in>
<interference-pending-in>F</interference-pending-in>
<opposition-pending-in>F</opposition-pending-in>
<section-12c-in>F</section-12c-in>
<section-2f-in>F</section-2f-in>
<section-2f-in-part-in>F</section-2f-in-part-in>
<section-8-accepted-in>T</section-8-accepted-in>
<section-15-acknowledged-in>T</section-15-acknowledged-in>
<renewal-filed-in>T</renewal-filed-in>
<section-8-filed-in>T</section-8-filed-in>
<section-8-partial-accept-in>F</section-8-partial-accept-in>
<section-15-filed-in>F</section-15-filed-in>
<supplemental-register-in>F</supplemental-register-in>
<foreign-priority-in>F</foreign-priority-in>
<change-registration-in>T</change-registration-in>
<status-code>800</status-code>
<mark-drawing-code>5U06</mark-drawing-code>
<intent-to-use-in>F</intent-to-use-in>
<intent-to-use-current-in>F</intent-to-use-current-in>
<filed-as-use-application-in>T</filed-as-use-application-in>
<amended-to-use-application-in>F</amended-to-use-application-in>
<use-application-currently-in>T</use-application-currently-in>
<amended-to-itu-application-in>F</amended-to-itu-application-in>
<filing-basis-filed-as-44d-in>F</filing-basis-filed-as-44d-in>
<amended-to-44d-application-in>F</amended-to-44d-application-in>
<filing-basis-current-44d-in>F</filing-basis-current-44d-in>
<filing-basis-filed-as-44e-in>F</filing-basis-filed-as-44e-in>
<amended-to-44e-application-in>F</amended-to-44e-application-in>
<without-basis-currently-in>F</without-basis-currently-in>
<filing-current-no-basis-in>F</filing-current-no-basis-in>
<color-drawing-filed-in>F</color-drawing-filed-in>
<color-drawing-current-in>F</color-drawing-current-in>
<drawing-3d-filed-in>F</drawing-3d-filed-in>
<filing-basis-current-44e-in>F</filing-basis-current-44e-in>
<drawing-3d-current-in>F</drawing-3d-current-in>
<mark-identification>CELOTEX</mark-identification>
<renewal-date>19920318</renewal-date>
<employee-number>00000</employee-number>
</case-file-header>

This has been presented to the appropriate area for investigation.

~~~

Inquiry – 9/17/2003:

All the XML files are supposed to be in UTF-8 format.

The following file TTAB tt030701.xml has ASCII value 146 twice in the following line.

ADMIN</charge-to-employee-name><status-update-date>20021008</status-
update-date><status-code>9</status-code><party-
information><party><identifier>260024</identifier><role-code>D</role-
code><name>PAT O'BRIEN'S BAR, INC.</name><property-
information><property><identifier>245280</identifier>

The single quotes being sent to us are not in UTF-8 format.

This type of error can also be found in other TTAB xml files:

tt030515.xml
tt030711.xml

This is brought up because the TTAB files are still being produced with invalid
characters

This has been presented to the appropriate area for investigation.

~~~

Inquiry – 9/05/2003

We have noted some discrepancies between the weekly text files and the daily XML files. The following is a case in point.

In the weekly text files Serial Number 78102397 (ASPEN) appeared in the TKAB section of the wt030805.txt, wt030812.txt and wt030826.txt files.
(See attachment, weekly.txt, for excerpts of this record from these 3 files).
The last file (wt030826.txt) shows that the TTAB status is
009(Terminated) and the decision code is 803 (Board's Decision: Dismissed w/ Prejudice).

In the daily XML files the last TTAB update for this record was in the tt030801.xml daily file with a <status-code> of 2 (pending) and a<status-update-date> of 20021223. No further TTAB updates were received for that record since that file.
(See attached file, tt030801_78102397.xml, which is an excerpt from tt030801.xml file showing this record.)

It seems that this record slipped through the cracks in the daily xml updates.

We've found cases where some records are more up-to-date via the xml files, and others which are more up-to-date via the weekly text files. If a record is updated via the weekly text file, shouldn't we expect that same record in the xml files during that same week? In general, how soon after a record is updated by the PTO should we see that record in the xml daily files?

This has been presented to the appropriate area for investigation.

~~~

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 was determined to be an error in the software that maintains the data prior to the xml conversion. A correction will take place October 10, 2003.

NOTE: Due to additional changes the maintenance update release has been extended beyond October 10, 2003.

~~~

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 and should take place during the next maintenance update release.

~~~

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 - 7/03/2003

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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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>
<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 &amp; ZISSU, P.C.</orgname>
<address-1>866 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA AT FIRST AVENUE &amp; 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 &amp; 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</postcode>
</proceeding-address>

A correction has been presented to the data management area. Upon approval it will be implemented.

~~~

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.

NOTE: Due to additional changes the maintenance update release has been extended beyond 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.

NOTE: Due to additional changes the maintenance update release has been extended beyond 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 - 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 &#167.

In XML, there are only five predefined character entities, as follows:

Character	Entity Reference	Decimal	Hexadecimal
<	&lt	&#60	&#x3C
>	&gt	&#62	&#x3E
&	&amp	&#38	&#x26
"	&quot	&#34	&#x22
'	&apos	&#39	&#x27

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