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

October 31, 2003

Trademark Daily XML Files - Weekly Status Report

New This Week:

1. There were 5 new inquiries since the last Weekly Status Report. Reference New Inquiries below.

2. It was previously announced in July 2003 that Version “B” Madrid test data would be provided once each week beginning November 2003 and continue through the end of December 2003.

A decision was made on Thursday, October 30, 2003 that production version “B” Madrid data would be available beginning daily November 2, 2003.

Because of the timeliness of this decision all procedures must be put into place to accommodate this latest change. The installment of these procedures have begun and will be made available and announced ASAP. The retrospective daily data back to November 2, 2003 will be made available at that time.

3. The Trademark-Applications-Documentation-V.10 “B” version has been replaced on the TDXF DTD's, Documentation and Sample Data page that includes the Madrid International-Status-Code Table.

4. Corrected Trademark Application Sample Data “B” version has been placed on the TDXF DTD's, Documentation and Sample Data page.

~~~

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 – 10/27/2003:

The Trademark Application “B” Sample Data dated 10/24/2003 contained unrecoverable data errors:

A corrected Trademark Application Sample Data “B” version dated 10/28/2003 has been placed on the TDXF DTD's, Documentation and Sample Data page.

The conversion of the Latin-1 character set to UTF-8 encoding caused the initial problem and is being corrected.

~~~

Inquiry – 10/27/2003:

Please clarify the appearance of the Trademark 24 Hour Box after November 2, 2003.

After November 2, 2003, the Daily Trademark Application Image 24 Hour Box will contain the following:

1. Trademark XML files for electronic applications filed through TEAS. The XML files will contain text information about the application. If the application contains a drawing, a cropped image file in JPEG format will also be present. The JPEG images can be black and white, grey-scale, or color.

2. Trademark XML files for electronic applications filed through the IB. The XML files will contain text information about the application. If the application contains a drawing, a cropped image file in JPEG format will also be present. The JPEG images can be black and white, grey-scale, or color.

3. Trademark TIFF image (black and white) and JPEG image (color) files for paper submissions of Trademark applications. The TIFF and JPEG image files contain full-page drawing images and as amended full-page drawing images.

4. The Trademark TIFF and JPEG images containing full-page drawings for paper submissions of Trademark applications will reside in the Trademark 24 Hour Box as stated in 3. above.

These full-page drawing images will be subsequently cropped and provided as a cropped TIFF image for black and white and cropped JPEG image for color in a supplemental file to the next days Trademark 24 Hour Box.

NOTE: The trademark images currently being disseminated on “B6”, “B7” and B8” magnetic tape cartridges will be available through December 2003. Color images will not be included on the cartridges.

Current customers receiving these cartridges can also have access to the Trademark 24 Hour Box through December 2003 by e-mailing: Ed.Johnson@uspto.gov.

~~~

Inquiry – 10/27/2003

Regarding the Trademark 24-Hour Box.

1. The IB v1.0 DTD does not match the sample record included.
2. The sample record file name is where the 79 series code is found, there is no reference within the sample of this number; nor a file date.
3. Do you have a Mapping Table or Element Definition for the IB v1.0 DTD elements?

This inquiry has been represented to the appropriate trademark area for resolution.

~~~

Inquiry – 10/29/2003

It is our understanding that we will be receiving from you after November 3rd a weekly test file of production data based on the DTD that will be frozen as of November 2nd. On January 2, 2004, we will begin receiving in the daily production feeds not only what we are receiving today; but also the inclusion of the Madrid related information based on the DTD that will be frozen as of November 2nd. Is that a true assumption? If so, then on January 2, 2004 will we be receiving all records that have been filed from November 2nd through January 1, 2004 under the Madrid agreement included in the daily January 2nd file -- or will there be a "catch-up" file sent to us with the Madrid related information filed from November 2, 2003 - January 1, 2004?

Please reference item #2. in “New This Week” above.

~~~

Inquiry – 10/31/2003

Correspondent and owner information are provided.

It is requested that the telephone number, the fax number and email address, if available information, for the correspondent and owner be provided.

This has been forwarded to the appropriate trademark area for investigation.

~~~

Outstanding 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 week 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.

~~~

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 – 10/9/2003

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 – 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