<< We received the 1992 revision of MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
<< PROCEDURE from Clark Boardman Callaghan. ...
<< part of our subscription to LIPSCOMB'S WALKER ON PATENTS
<< and it is to be used in place of v.10 of that set. ...
<< Since it is a separate title it would have to be cataloged
<< separately. How are other libraries handling this?
According to AACR2 rev. 1.9B, we can describe supplementary items
dependently in either of the three ways. Since the "Manual of
patent examining procedure" is supplement (and replacement) to
vol. 10 of the set of "Lipscomb's Walker on patents", we can just
include a note on the bibliographic record of the Lipscomb's set
to indicate that vol. 10 has a separate title, and then make an
added entry for the title of vol. 10. In this way, we don't need
to create and upkeep another record, but we have enough
information and access point on the bibliographic record of the
Lipscomb's set for the difference of vol. 10.
<< Is this another case of a publisher finding another way to
<< charge? Does anyone know if the annual upkeep cost of
<< Walker on patents will be less since v.10 is now a separate
<< publication?
I am not sure whether the upkeep cost will be less. But we still
pay for each revised volume and supplement.
Hope this helps!
//<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> %%%%%%%%%%%
<> Vianne Tang Sha <> %% Quality
<> University of Missouri-Columbia <> %%%% +
<> School of Law Library <> %%% Quantity
<> Internet: Tang@Law.Missouri.Edu <> %%%% =\=
<> Bitnet: Lawlibvt@Mizzou1.Bitnet <> %% Perfect
\\<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> %%%%%%%%%%%
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST