5Strategic Drafting of Applications for U.S. and European
Patents by Japanese Companies from an Enforcement
Perspective (2)In this report, a method for converting a U.S. application into a European application was considered as
one of the measures for Japanese companies to obtain patents whose rights are usable in Europe and the UnitedStates. While measures to strengthen U.S. applications were proposed in a study during the last fiscal year, a
study this year proposes a method for filing a European application on the basis of an improved U.S.
application.
In this study, 30 European applications filed by Japanese companies were analyzed, and problems withdescriptions in claims and specifications were indicated. Problems peculiar to European patent applications
were extracted through comparison with points to be noted upon filing U.S. patent applications, and solutions to
the problems were considered. The principle of one independent claim per category and other problems wereclosely examined.
In addition, matters to be noted upon filing U.S. applications were sent to barristers in Germany and theUnited Kingdom to confirm items that should be added as points to be noted upon filing European applications
from the viewpoint of enforcement.
On the basis of the above result, checklists for the specification for filing an application in Japan, theUnited States, and Europe, were prepared. Furthermore, measures for effectively utilizing overseas
representatives to implement these checklists were developed.
Against the background of the above achievements, this study proposed a means of preparing a patent
specification that enables effective claim of the right at the Trilateral Patent Offices-the Japan Patent Office(JPO), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and the European Patent Office (EPO).

1

Purposes and Problems of the Study

According to data on patent applications incountries throughout the world that was publishedby the World Intellectual Property Organization(WIPO) in 2002, 71% of all applications filed by
Japanese companies or organizations were filed inEurope or the United States, with the majority filed
in the United States. With respect to foreign
applications, Japanese companies attach greatest
importance to the United States, followed by the
EPO.
According to the results of interviews withcompanies that are actively filing foreign
applications, Japanese companies prepare a
specification for a U.S. application based on theJapanese application, and then convert the
specification into the format for a European
application.
This study was intended to consider a meansof filing applications in the United States andEurope based on Japanese applications in line withthe trend of foreign applications of Japanesecompanies. The means proposed in this reportaims not only to obtain patents, but also to prepare
claims and specifications that will enable a
successful claim of rights in disputes in foreigncountries.
In the last fiscal year (FY 2002), problems withIIP Bulletin 2004

U.S. patents obtained by Japanese companies wereanalyzed, and proposals were made to improve themethod of describing a specification including
claims. If Japanese companies can draft the
specifications of applications to be filed with the
EPO on the basis of suggested improvements of
U.S. applications, it is expected that they can build
a strong network of their foreign patents withregards to enforcement.
This fiscal year, European patents obtained by
Japanese companies were analyzed with the aim ofestablishing a means of filing applications with the
Trilateral Patent Offices-the JPO, the USPTO, andthe EPO-for one invention created in Japan. In
addition, conversion of a U.S. patent application
into a European application was also considered.
21)Analysis of European Patents Possessedby Japanese Companies

Background
The actual conditions of 30 European patents ofJapanese companies were reviewed. Based on thereview results, problems with descriptions of claims
and specifications were clarified, and measures for
dealing with the problems were examined.
Published patent applications were reviewed as
main samples, and published granted patents werereviewed as appropriate.

● 30 ●

2)
i)

Issues Related to Claims
Items that Were Questioned
The following details items in which more than
30% of all samples were pointed out as having
problems, and suggests points to be checked.
Item 1: Does the sample contain many different
categories of claims?
This item checks whether an application
contains different categories of claims, such asprocess, apparatus, product, composition, and use.
This relies on Rule 29(2) of the Implementing
Regulations to the Convention on the Grant ofEuropean Patents (hereinafter referred to as the EP
Regulations). This is not an essential item for
examination at the EPO, but it checks on whether
the broad protection of an invention is taken into
consideration in filing a patent application in view ofenforcement.
Item 2: Does the sample contain one independentclaim per category?
Rule 29(2) of the EP Regulations stipulates
that more than one independent claim in the same
category cannot be admitted. This item wasconsidered because this rule constitutes a reason
for refusal at the EPO.
Item 3: Is the number of claims 10 or under?
This is important from an economic standpoint
since Rule 31 of the EP Regulations stipulates thatan applicant has to pay a claims fee (40 euros per
additional claim) for each claim over and above 10.
Item 5: Does the sample adopt the multiple
dependent claim form?
Rule 29(4) of the EP Regulations admits themultiple dependent claim form. Claims in this form
enable various responses against infringers or
licensees. How the form is used was checked since
it is a useful means of keeping the number of claims
to 10 or under, and is a practice that allows
establishing a multiple dependent claim based on amultiple dependent claim, which is not admitted in
the United States.
Item 6: Does a claim include reference signs?
Rule 29(7) of the EP Regulations stipulates
that reference signs for drawings can, if theintelligibility of the technical features mentioned in
the claims can thereby be increased, be assigned tothe parts relating to these features. It also stipulates
that reference signs shall not be construed aslimiting the claim.
Item 13: Are claims described in a two-part form?
This item is related to two-part claims as
stipulated in Rule 29(1) of the EP Regulations. In
the United States, it is general practice to avoid
using a two-part form (for example, a Jepson form)
as far as possible. This item compared how Japanesecompanies deal with this practice which is different
in Europe and the United States.
Regarding these problems, the number ofclaims (Item 3) and reference signs in claims (Item6) seem to be related to fees or the applicant's
decision. Therefore, neither is mentioned in detailhere, but Items 1, 2, 5, and 13 are described ingreater detail.
ii) Analysis of the Problems① There are only a few different categories ofclaimsAs a result of review, European patents ofJapanese companies contain only a few independentclaims of various categories. This is a major problem
for applications by Japanese companies, which was
also indicated when reviewing U.S. patents.
Many claims prepared by Japanese companies
are in the form of placing many dependent claims
under one independent claim.
In addition, even if companies think that they
have prepared different categories of claims,
independent claims may be deleted in theexamination process. According to the review
results, the percentage of samples that do notcontain different categories of claims was 48% forpublished patent applications but was 59% forpublished granted patents. This means that the
number of independent claims decreases during theexamination process for the reason of unity or any
other reason.
Although this is mentioned in detail in Chapter
II "Analysis of Claims," including independent claimsof different categories is expected to have effects
such as largely increasing the possibility thatpatentees can file lawsuits against various infringers
once patents are registered.
Therefore, in preparing patent claims, attention
should always be paid to drafting claims of different
categories if possible. It seems necessary toconsider including at least one process and one
apparatus.
② Problem of one independent claim per category
This is a problem arising in 55% of the sample
at the stage of published patent application.
According to interviews with Japanese companies,
about 60% of the companies answered that they did
not check this problem at the time of filing
applications. Since this problem constitutes a reason
for refusal at the EPO, a careful handling is
considered necessary.
In addition, if companies resolve this problem
at the time of filing applications, they can avoid
some objections made during the examination
procedure, which seems to be advantageous interms of time and costs.
This problem seems to be resolvable by suchmethods as drafting as many independent claims as
possible based on a higher concept or by making all
claims in the same category other than a single
independent claim into dependent claims.
However, there is a question of what to do if it
is difficult to set a higher concept. What is important
here is that exceptions stipulated in Rule 29(2) of● 31 ●IIP Bulletin 2004

the EP Regulations can be admitted. According to
the review results, two or more categories of
independent claims have been admitted for 13% ofsamples in the field of machinery, for 36% in thefield of electricity, and for 30% in the field ofchemistry.
The above-mentioned results can be estimatedto be due to the application of exceptions as
stipulated in Rule 29(2). Cited examples of
exceptions are products and their combination, and acompound and a composition of matter, for which ahigher concept cannot be set because there areseveral alternative solutions. Therefore, if it isdifficult to meet the principle of one independentclaim per category, it is necessary to consider
actively drafting independent claims based on the
exceptions stipulated in this provision.
③ Problem of multiple dependent claims
The use of multiple dependent claims should
be positively considered from the viewpoint of
reducing the number of claims in terms of cost.
Since European applications are largely different
from U.S. applications, the review of claims isrequired. However, if draft claims of U.S. andEuropean applications are prepared at the time offiling a corresponding Japanese application, notmuch additional labor will be required.
④ Problem of two-part claimsWith respect to two-part claims, it is not clear,at the time of filing an application, where the true
prior art exists, and the characterizing part of an
invention becomes clear along with the progress of
examination in many cases. Therefore, even if
claims are described in a two-part form, it isnecessary to amend them at the subsequentexamination stage. On the other hand, if claims aredescribed in a two-part form, which makes thescope of the claims narrower, from the time of filingan application, problems may arise in the future,such as a narrower interpretation of the right andunjust treatment in an agreement.
It is a difficult question whether to describe
claims in a two-part form at the time of filing anapplication.
It is considered safe to adopt a two-part claim
only when the prior art is absolutely clear at thetime of filing an application.
3) Issues Related to Detailed Descriptioni) Items that Were Questioned
Regarding the following five items, problems
were indicated in more than 30% of samples. The
details of the items and points checked are shown
below.
Item 5: Are the descriptions of a solution related toclaims?
The key points of this item are to confirm
whether the descriptions of a solution are related toclaims and to check whether the purpose of theinvention is achieved by a combination of

IIP Bulletin 2004

characteristics described in the main claim andwhether sub-claims fall under further improvementsof the invention.
Item 6: Is the mere repeat of claims avoided in thedescriptions in the specification?
In the detailed description, the contents ofclaims should be explained in order to clarify them.
Whether companies pay attention to such points
was checked.
Item 7: Is detailed description of the invention
written in general terms?
When describing the characteristics of theinvention, the careless use of a term for a lower
concept will cause a narrower interpretation.
Whether companies pay attention to such point was
confirmed.
Item 9: Are claims before amendment or at the timeof filing an application listed in the specification as"clauses"?
Although "clauses" are not exactly claims, they
can bring about an effect similar to the publication ofclaims. It was checked whether companies use
devices, such as reducing claims fee based on such amethod, which is peculiar to European patentapplications.
Item 18: Is a detailed description of the invention ina specification written in comprehensive terms
indicating a higher concept?
As with Item 7, this item aims to check
whether companies write a detailed description of
the invention in consideration of broad protection of
the right.
Incidentally, Items 7 and 18 were pointed out asproblems with U.S. patents of Japanese companies,
and the causes of these problems were analyzed andsolutions proposed. Therefore, Items 5, 6, and 9 aredescribed here in further detail.
ii) Analysis of the Problems① Relationship between the fact that a solution is
described in a reflection of claims and the fact thatclaims as they are should not be described as asolution (Relationship between Item 5 and Item 6)
In Europe, the inventive step of an invention isdetermined through the problem-solution-approach.
The characteristics of an invention are made clear
by making the purpose correspond to the broadest
claim (independent claim) and clarifying that the
purpose does not correspond to any dependentclaim.
Then, describing the mere independent claim
is a conceivable method, but this is not acceptable,
and an explanation of the details of claims should be
added. This is the purpose of checking Item 6.
On the other hand, in the practice of U.S.
applications, there is a concern that the descriptionof the purpose of the invention will lead to anarrower interpretation of the claims. Therefore, it
is recommended not to write the purpose but totrace the claims to the possible extent.

● 32 ●

This item is thus highly likely to be pointed out
for applications filed by Japanese companies that aredrafted by converting a U.S. application into a
European application.
Therefore, there is a possible question of how
to deal with this problem when converting a U.S.
application into a European application.
First of all, regarding the description of the
purpose, many U.S. patent specifications list several
different aspects of a solution in the invention, but it
is important to reconfirm the "main purpose" of theinvention and make additions if necessary before
filing a corresponding European application. It isappropriate to insert a simple and accurate purposeas the "main purpose."
Otherwise, it is acceptable to describe the"main purpose" merely as "the purpose of theinvention is to provide a solution to the defects ofthe prior art."
Next, regarding the relationship between the
purpose and claims, it is possible to clarify the
relationship by inserting a simple description to theeffect that "the above-mentioned purpose isachieved by a combination of the characteristics
described in the independent claim, and subordinate
claims provide for specific advantageous examplesof the invention."
This is because the insertion of such a
description expresses that the entirety of the
combination of the characteristics is described in
response to working examples while stating that the
combination of the characteristics cited in the(independent) claim provides a solution to the
purpose of the invention.
The above is considered to serve as practicalguidelines for those who associated with Japanesecompanies when drafting European patent
specifications.
② Use of "clauses"
According to a decision (J15/88), it is possible
to describe several independent claims as several
clauses after the "summary of the invention" under
the title of "preferred features of the invention."
In converting a U.S. specification into a
European specification, there is the question of how
to leave the original claims in the U.S.-stylespecification as they are, but this problem can besolved by using clauses. The use of such clauses
largely expands the contents of a European
application at the time of filing because the original
claims in a U.S. application discuss various
combinations of the characteristics of the invention
as well as many aspects thereof.
Out of 30 samples subject to this review, only
one used such clauses. The use of clauses can
reduce the number of claims, so Japanesecompanies should actively consider using thismethod to keep the number of claims to 10 or under.

3

Results of Analyzing the Claims of U.S.
Patents
Possessed
byJapanese
Companies

1)

Background
With the aim of considering solutions to themain problems with the claims of patents possessedby Japanese companies, 20 U.S. patents wereselected and their Official Patent Gazettes andexamination processes were reviewed.
2) Items that Were Questioned
Items related to claims with which many
samples were pointed out as having problems are as
follows. The details of matters pointed out andcountermeasures are indicated below.
i) Claims that Are Narrowly Interpreted
Four out of 20 patents (20%) subject to thereview contained a claim that may invite a narrowerinterpretation of the technical scope. In addition, for
20% of subject patent applications, a patent was
granted without any reasons for refusal being given
concerning the substantive contents of the relevant
patent. The fact that a decision to grant a patent ismade at the initial application indicates thepossibility that claims drafted at the time of filingmay cover a narrower technical scope than that
determined based on the prior art.
ii) There Is Only One Independent Claim
A majority of samples (55%) contained only
one independent claim. That a patent contains only a
few independent claims is a problem common topatents of Japanese companies.
In drafting patent claims, it is necessary toinclude at least one process and at least one
apparatus wherever possible and to draft
independent claims that define multifaceted aspects.
This largely enhances the possibility that patentees
can file lawsuits against various kinds of infringers
after registration of patents.
According to the review results, 75% contained
technical content suitable for a claim for a process ofmanufacture, and 20% contained technical content
suitable for a use claim, but these contents had notbeen put into claims.
iii) Antecedent Basis
65% of registered patents reviewed had
descriptive problems relating to antecedent.
Specifically,
one
thing
is
described
as"above-mentioned" though it is actually "firstmentioned." Such logical contradictions become
major obstacles at the time of enforcement or
licensing negotiations.
Nearly half of such problems were solved
during the examination procedure, but more than
one-third of registered patents still have some formof descriptive problems relating to antecedent.
This is also an issue that consistently comes up
for Japanese companies. Many companies may thinkthat such problems would be resolved during the● 33 ●IIP Bulletin 2004

examination procedure, but in fact, the problems
will not be completely cleared up throughexamination. In addition, the fact that no
improvements have ever been made andantecedent-basis descriptions have been pointed out
repeatedly is also a problem. Applying companies,
translation companies, and other persons concerned
are considered to be required to make efforts to
reduce such problems through accumulation of pastcases.
iv) Alternative Words
Half of registered patents reviewed contained
claims that include an alternative word such as"either...or" and "or." The use of an alternative word
often causes a certain degree of ambiguity in termsof the scope of the claims. Even when the scope ofthe claims is easily determinable, the use of such aword may induce a refusal during examination,
which could have been easily avoided. Therefore,
the use of an alternative word should be avoided as
far as possible.
If it is necessary to give two or morealternatives to a claimed element, the Markush
form and other methods should be considered.
v) Paragraphing of Constituent Features
35-40% of patents reviewed used "storytelling"
expressions, and claims were not put into
paragraphs so as to correspond to the conceptual
separation of claimed elements.
Since there is no clear definition of "element,"
the U.S. court may use the structural constitution ofclaims as a basis for distinguishing among elements.
Therefore, in terms of drafting U.S. claims, it isrecommended to separate elements and concepts
structurally and explain their relationship by using
clear and simple expressions.
The following are well-known advantages of
putting elements into paragraphs: (1) Each
constituent feature becomes clear and judges, thejury and other related persons at the court can thus
easily understand the relationship between theconstituent features; (2) The effect of amendment inclaim interpretation is contested at court, but the
subject of the contestation may be limited to thescope of the amended constituent features.
This is also an important matter in terms ofenforcement. Therefore, in this study, samples inwhich constituent features are not put into
paragraphs were selected out of patents reviewed inorder to consider the optimal way of putting claims
into paragraphs.
4

Conversion of a Specification of a U.S.
Application into a Specification of aEuropean Application

1)

Issues for Foreign Applications ofJapanese Companies
Problems with European patent applications

IIP Bulletin 2004

and U.S. patent applications fielded by Japanesecompanies and countermeasures against them wereconsidered so far. The method of converting a U.S.
application into a European application was
discussed in consideration of these points.
The problems considered can be divided into
issues common to U.S. and European applications
and issues peculiar to European applications.
i) Common issues are (1) that the number of
independent claims of different categories is small,and (2) that detailed description of the invention
does not describe the invention by using a possible
highest concept. These are important issues to be
noted from the time of filing a Japanese application,and must be noted in filing a European application.
ii) An issue peculiar to U.S. applications is theway of describing claims and detailed descriptions toprevent the claims from being interpreted narrowly.
Examples are to give consideration to limitative
expressions in claims, to put constituent features
into paragraphs, and to avoid describing the purposeof the invention in the detailed description as far as
possible.
In converting a U.S. application into a
European application, it is questioned whether
specifications and other documents with suchconsiderations given are unfavorably treated inEurope.
According to the results after confirming thispoint with barristers in the United Kingdom andGermany, there is nothing wrong with filing
applications in Europe with U.S.-style practicalconsiderations. In Europe, as long as the contents of
the invention are properly disclosed in thespecification, deficiency in the description may bemade up for, and there is no need to get nervous
about the description in the specification. However,with U.S.-style considerations given, unnecessary
discussion on the scope of the claims can be avoided
in the court cases in Europe.
iii) As for issues peculiar to European applications,(1) issues for claims are the principle of one
independent claim per category, keeping the numberof claims to 10 or under, the use of multiple
dependent claims, reference signs in claims, andtwo-part claims, and (2) issues for detailed
description of the invention is to avoid describing asolution and repeating claims, i.e. the problem ofuse of "clauses."
If problems common to Japan, the UnitedStates, and Europe are solved in a U.S. specification,
it is considered possible to convert the U.S.
application into a European application on the basisof the said U.S. specification by adding issues
peculiar to European applications.
2) How to Incorporate Issues Peculiar toEuropean Applications into the Contentsof Basic U.S. Applicationsi) Problems Concerning the Categories of● 34 ●

Claims
Unlike U.S. applications, only one independentclaim in the same category can be set for European
applications, except exemptions stipulated in Rule29(2) of the EP Regulations. Therefore, this is also
one of the problems in conversion.
The following are ways of coping with thisproblem.
① To make all claims in the same category otherthan one independent claim into dependent claims
in principle.
② When making claims into dependent claims, tomake them be dependent on multiple claims. In thatcase, it is also possible to use a multi-multi form.
③ In the case that it is impossible to comply withthe principle of one independent claim in the same
category, to draft claims by using exceptions
stipulated in the above-mentioned rule. For example,
products and their combination (battery packs andtheir combination), or the composition of acompound and a composition of matter seem to be
admitted as exceptions.
ii) Question of Whether to Describe the Scopeof the Claims in a Two-Part Form
Request for a two-part form constitutes adifference between European practice and U.S.
practice, and this becomes a problem in conversion.
In addition, if some constituent elements that
produce the characteristics of the invention are
carelessly included in the presupposed elements,
the applicant may be considered, in infringement
suits, etc, to have acknowledged that the relevant
elements are part of the prior art.
In the sense that the examiner has notcompleted prior art search and substantive
examination, it seems to be not always necessary toadopt a two-part form at the time of filing anapplication when the prior art has not been
determined, if the prior art is unknown.
iii) Methods of Avoiding and Reducing Fees for
Excess Claims
Under the European patent system, claims
over and above 10 are subject to fees for excess
claims. The following are measures to reduce thenumber of claims.
① To reduce the number of claims by using a
multiple dependent claim form, and adopt a
multi-multi dependent form if necessary.
② To describe the claims of a U.S. application,
which are not considered necessary to be includedin the scope of the claims of a corresponding
European application, as "clauses" after the"summary of the invention" in the specification.
iv) Method of Describing "Problem-SolutionEffects" in a Specification
Rule 27(1)(c) of the EP Regulations stipulates
that the claimed invention shall be disclosed in a
specification in the form of "problem-solution-effects."
To comply with this stipulation, U.S. patent

specifications must be changed significantly. The
way of using the descriptions in U.S. specifications
to the possible extent is shown below.
① In the case that the "background of theinvention" gives a sufficient explanation of the priorart, the description of the purpose of the invention
shall merely describe the effect that "The purpose of
the invention is to provide a solution to the defectsof the prior art."② The relationship between the purpose of theinvention and a solution can be explained by one
sentence as follows: "The above-mentioned purpose
is achieved by a combination of the characteristics
described in the independent claim, and subordinate
claims provide for specific further advantageous
examples of the invention."③ In order to reduce the risk of a narrowerinterpretation, consideration shall be given to
inserting one sentence to the effect that "thissummary of the invention does not list all necessary
characteristics, and therefore, sub-combinations ofthese characteristics may also constitute an
invention."
5

Consideration of a Strategic Specification
to Be Filed with the Trilateral Patent
Offices-the JPO, the USPTO, and the EPO
Checklist for U.S. and European
Applications

The following was found as a result ofreviewing European patents and U.S. patents
possessed by Japanese companies.
① Both U.S. patent attorneys and European
patent attorneys pointed out that European and U.S.
patents possessed by Japanese companies contain
only a few independent claims of different
categories and do not describe the invention by ahigher concept in detailed description of theinvention. These points are essential matters fromthe viewpoint of utilization of rights, and sufficientconsideration seems necessary at the time of filingJapanese applications.
② Description requirements for a claim differ
between the United States and Europe.
③ For detailed description of the invention,
description requirements differ slightly between the
United States and Europe in some points. But it ispossible to adopt a description common to Europe
and the United States that will not cause problems
from a practical standpoint.
When filing a U.S. or European application on
the basis of a Japanese patent application, it isnecessary to draft a specification for the translation
with attention given to the above-mentioned points.
Since there are common matters that must be notedfrom the time of drafting a Japanese specification interms of the disclosure of claims and the invention,
it is important to draft a specification, which● 35 ●IIP Bulletin 2004

provides a strong right in Japan and of which meretranslation is also accepted in Europe and theUnited States, at the time of filing a Japanese patentapplication.
Therefore, a strategic specification of an
application to be filed with the Trilateral Patent
Offices-the JPO, the USPTO, and the EPO -wasconsidered, and a checklist for specifications of U.S.
and European applications was proposed.
① Regarding claims, description requirements
differ between the United States and Europe, so
claims for a U.S. application and those for aEuropean application shall be accurately drafted inJapanese separately.
② Regarding specifications, it is important toconsider issues peculiar to European applications,such as measures to avoid self-collision, in terms ofa specification of a European application. Apart form
these exceptions, there seems to be no problem inusing a common specification for a U.S. application
and a European application.
③ By using the checklist, it seems possible toreview items to be considered in drafting a
specification of a Japanese application that issuitable for U.S. and European applications.
If the contents of a Japanese application aresatisfying from the very beginning and fulfill thequality conditions for a Japanese original for thetranslation as mentioned here, the Japaneseapplication can be diverted to U.S. and European
applications by merely changing its form. This isthus considered to be most desirable.
6

attorneys. Due to this fact, it is considered that
there remain problems that Japanese companies
should solve with the cooperation of overseas
patent attorneys, such as checking methods andtheir thorough implementation.

Proposal to Use Representatives toStrategically File U.S. and European
Applications

In the case of aiming to obtain a strong patentin the United States and Europe from the viewpointof utilization of rights, cooperation from overseas
patent attorney seems to be essential.
According to the results of a questionnaire
survey targeting companies, companies seem to becarrying forward the practice of filing applications in
the United States and Europe by themselves
without making active use of overseas patent
attorney. However, there seem to be many casesthat would benefit from the advice of overseas
representatives. Such efficient division of labor isconsidered to be a future task.
Furthermore, with regard to problems withforeign applications of Japanese companies thatwere cited by overseas patent attorneys, many
Japanese companies were supposed to be doing
sufficient checks before filing applications, according
to interviews with Japanese companies this time.
However, it is an indisputable fact that these
problems have not yet been solved in the actual
samples that were analyzed by overseas patent

IIP Bulletin 2004

● 36 ●(Senior Researcher: Shinichi Irie)● 37 ●IIP Bulletin 2004