Prior art retrieval using the claims section as a bag of words

Abstract

We describe our participation in the 2009 CLEF-IP task, which was targeted at priorart search for topic patent documents. Our system retrieved patent documents based on a standard bag-of-words approach for both the Main Task and the English Task. In both runs, we extracted the claim sections from all English patents in the corpus and saved them in the Lemur index format with the patent IDs as DOCIDs. These claims were then indexed using Lemur's BuildIndex function. In the topic documents we also focussed exclusively on the claims sections. These were extracted and converted to queries by removing stopwords and punctuation. We did not perform any term selection. We retrieved 100 patents per topic using Lemur's RetEval function, retrieval model TF-IDF. Compared to the other runs submitted for the track, we obtained good results in terms of nDCG (0.46) and moderate results in terms of MAP (0.054).

Introduction

2.1

Our methodology

Data selection

The CLEF-IP corpus consists of EPO documents with publication date between 1985 and 2000, covering English, French, and German patents (1,958,955 patent-documents pertaining to 1,022,388 patents, 75GB) [ 3 ]. The XML documents in the corpus do not correspond to one complete patent each but one patent can consist of multiple XML les (representing documents that were produced at di erent stages of a patent realization).

We decided to focus on the claims sections of the patents, because we found that many of the English patent documents did not contain abstracts. Moreover, we expected the claims section to be the most informative part of a patent.

In the CLEF-IP 2009 track the participating teams were provided with 4 di erent sets of topics (S,M,L,XL). We opted to do runs on the smallest set (the S data set) for both the Main and the English task. This set contained 500 topics. Because the information in these topics was di erent for both tasks (the topics for the Main Task contained the abstract content as well as the full information of the granted patent except for citation information, while the topic patents for the English Task only contained the title and claims elements of the granted patent [ 3 ]), we focussed only on the (English) claims sections from all topic patents. 2.2

Query formulation

There has been much research on the topic of query term extraction/query formulation [ 1 ]. However, we chose not to distil any query terms from the extracted claims section but took all words in the claims section as one long query (weighted in retrieval with TF-IDF). The reason for this was twofold. First, adding a term selection step in the retrieval process makes the retrieval process more prone to errors because it requires the development of a smart selection process. Second, by weighting the query and document terms using TF-IDF, a form of term selection is carried out in the retrieval and ranking process. 2.3

Indexing using Lemur

We extracted the claims sections from all English patents in the corpus. after we had removed all XML markup from the texts in a preprocessing script. Since a patent may consist of multiple XML documents, which correspond to the di erent stages of the patent realization process, one patent can contain more than one claims section. In the index le, we concatenated the claims sections pertaining to one patent ID into one document. We saved all patent claims in the Lemur index format with the patent IDs as DOCIDs. They were then indexed using the BuildIndex function of Lemur with the indri IndexType and a stop word list for general English3. 3

Results

We performed runs for the Main and English Task with the methodology described above. Since we used the same set-up for both runs, we obtained the same results. These results are in Table 1. The rst row shows the results that are obtained if all relevant assignments are taken into consideration; the second row contains the results for the highly-relevant citations only [ 2 ]. 4

Discussion

Although the results that we obtained with our ClaimsBOW approach may seem poor on rst sight, they are not bad compared to the results that were obtained in runs by other participants. In terms of nDCG, our run performs well (ranked 6th of 70 runs); in terms of MAP our results 3This stop word list can be provided by the authors upon request. are moderate (ranked around 35th of 70 runs). The low performance achieved by almost all runs (except for the one submitted by Humboldt University) shows that the task at hand is a di cult one.

References

[1] Kazuya Konishi . Query Terms Extraction from Patent Document for Invalidity Search . In Proceedings of NTCIR-5 Workshop Meeting , pages 312 { 317 , 2005 .

[2] Florina Piroi , Giovanna Roda, and Veronika Zenz . CLEF-IP 2009 Evaluation Summary . Technical report, Information Retrieval Facility , 2009 .

[3] Florina Piroi , Giovanna Roda, and Veronika Zenz . CLEF-IP 2009 Track Guidelines . Technical report, Information Retrieval Facility , 2009 .