Range				Claims							Figures							Sheets
Date	Numbers	Possible Total	Actual Total	Min	25%ile	Median	75%ile	Max	Avg	% below avg	Min	25%ile	Median	75%ile	Max	Avg	% below avg	Min	25%ile	Median	75%ile	Max	Avg	%below avg
12/21/1976 to 12/28/1976	3,999,000 to 3,999,999	1000	1000		4	8	12		9.2			3	5	9		6.9			1	2	3		2.8
12/07/1999 to 02/01/2000	6,000,000 to 6,019,999	20000	19938	1	8	14	21	224	16.5	58.9	0	4	8	13	446	10.7	62.2	0	2	4	8	446	6.88	66.2
02/14/2006 (all)	6,999,000 to 6,999,999	1000	990		9	15	21		19.6			5	8	13		13.3			4	6	9		9.5

Comments If there are 1000 patents,  calculated numbers should be expressed with no more than 3 significant figures.  If there are on the order of 10000 patents, calculated numbers can be expressed with 4 signfiicant figures.  Because I  alawys laugh at percentages expressed with 4 significant figures (e.g., 33.46% or 7.382%) when the data set has only 20 entries, I prefer to use fewer significant figures.  Also, since the underlying data set (patent claims, patent figures, patent sheets) is in whole numbers only,  there is a good argument that even averages should be expressed as whole numbers. The "% below average" is calculated as follows:  number of patents with less than the average divided by total number of patents in group.   Because claims, figures and sheets are all whole numbers, and the average has a decimal value, this is easy to calculate.  It is an indication of how much the average is affected by the high outliers.  There are no low outliers because the minimum number of claims, figures and sheets can not go below 1, 0 or 0, respectively. The data on the two 1K ranges was  included in myunpublishedworks.blogspot.com on  3/7/11 Data on the 20K range was compiled on 3/26/11 and included in myunpublishedworks.blogspot.com on 4/26/11 Curiousities: for the 20K data, the number of patents with zero FIGURES was 1920 but the number with zero SHEETS was 2020.  How could that be?! Additional data will be added from time to time. rjm rev 0 4/26/11