New-York daily tribune., 1858-02-24


msry the word inventor has become synonymeci
kna7e or fool, and that for all men of experience In
the matter. patent issued by tho u. ). Govern
meut has no more value than an old newspaper
until its worth has been atte sted by some private
individual Of skill and judgment.
Another cause which has been equally powerful
in DESTROYING confidence in the decisions OF the
Patent Office, is that the Examiners have alowed
the claims to be drawn in language calculated 70
friehten competitors by its obscurity, and to bear
several interpretations before the COurts The Ia"
entitled An act TO promote the progress of the
useful arts" 1t Is enacted that patents shall be
issued for "new AID useful discoveries, inventions
and Improvements; but let any one examine any
weekly list of the patents issued, and he will be
Convinced that onehslf of the articles patented are
neither new nor useful and that granting patents
for them as unjust as to allow private individuals TO
erect toll gates across public highway. In fact, the
progress Of the useful arts is retarded rather than
promoted By the Patent Office. Its further enacted
| that "in case of any machine he (the inventory
shall particularly specify and point out the part'
Improvement or combustion which he claims as
I" bis own invention or discovery" Take the list
of claims issued JAN 12 1853 to illustrate how this
important provision is executed. Onitting the usual
cumbersome heading, "What claim as my inyen-
"ton," &c, omitting also the usual finale, SUBJ
"stautally as described in the manner and for the
"purpose set FORTH" the first claim OF the lot
reads The arrangement and combination OF the
different parts of the machine" The third claim
reads: "The described method of connecting the
"two bit.holders NJ and n" In the list of Jan. 5
we read: "As a new article of manufacture,
"table-kr made substantially as described" and
also: "The husking and sheing glove as described
These few claims particularly specify" nothing,
aud read no better than claim what claim"
In mony cases an applicant claims exactly what has
been already granted to another, and the appica-
ton is at first rejected he then agrees to pay au
agent so much if he gets the Patent this agent re-
verses the previous method, and proceeds with
disclaimers. Hence so many claims which read
like this: &" l do not claim pipe, nor cylinder,
" nor journal, but claim pipe and cylinder
" and Journal as above described, and for the pur-
"pose set forth" Such patents are pitfalls in the
way Of serious inventors.
Another fault of the Patent Office is the want OF
unity of action Inventions are divided into classes,
and the classes are allotted to different Examiners,
and it has been observed that newly-apponted
examiners anxious to be praised in periodicals con-
nected with patent agencies are what they call
liberal. On the other hand, the older Examiners,
disgusted by experience, grow sour, look upon ap
picauts as upon thieves and endeayOr by all means
to shut them out of the Office. Mr.. Commissioner
Mason published circular advising inventors that
facilities would be given for them to transact their
business directly with the Patent Office instead of
employing agents. This rule was disregarded by
most of the Examiners and it is yet economical
in money and time to employ patent
agent at Washington. An example of the method
of dealing with applicants may be found In recent
case which is by no means worse than the average.
The application sent from New-YOrk complete,
with the model, to the Patent Office and reception
acknowledged at the end of October, 1857 On
November g. the specification and drawings were
returned for amendment, but the package was mis-.
directed to Albany, ond accidentally reached its
destination three weeks after date. The amend
ments were made as directed and sent back to the
Office. On December IL, the model was returned
for amendment and directed to the wrong street
The model was amended and sent back. On Jan
6, 1859, the drawings were returned for q fuller
representation ofthe claim. This was done accord
ingy. On Jan. IS, the applicant was informed that
the application was not yet perfectly correct, but
that after all it made no difference, as the patent
must be refused. The Examiner who has charge
of this application is evidently very jealous; he
does not LET on application lie in pigeon-hole for
ak months before looking at it; he has another
process, which consists in finding ore objection in
each case at a time, and keeping all agoing month
after month. An examination thus conducted il
badly made, foolish objections are resorted to- and
these, used in appeal by skilliul attorney cause
patents to be granted thst ought to be refused.
But our purpose is not so much to find fault with
the officers of the Patent Office as with the law
itself Examination to ascertain the novelty of in
yention is Intellectual, and was abandoned years
aeo by other nations. In England and France
Patent Offices are nothing but bureaux where the
dates of applications are recorded, to be subse-
queuty used as proof Of priority before the Courts.
This plan is simple, works admirably, dispenses
with costly staff Of examiners, sub-examiners
and clerks, and prevents numerous lawsuits.
Almost everyyea new patent law is introduced
in Congress. If just and liberal, it is defeated by
combination of rich mOnopolists; if got up to pro-
mote private interests, it its dropped for mere
shame at the outcry caused by ts appearance.
Two bills have been presented ths year by sIessrs
Taylor of n. Y, and Chafiee of Mass; both were
l.. o.. in, lar "a no hi M Ih6