Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-01-27
INVENTORS AND THE PATENT SYSTEM.


Our patent system is developing defects.
A patent is the only monopoly, as it guar
antees the enjoyment of an exclusive right.
There are 500, 600 patents recordsd and
500, coo applications on file, with others
coming in at the rate of 400 per week.
Obviously small corps of examiners can
not give them the thorough examination
necessary. They must understand the
principle involved in each case, its applica-
ton, and how far, if at all, it trenches
upon, modifies or improves previously
patented article or device This involves
laborious research, and call for patient and
intelligent consideration of high order.
If only superficial examination is given, the
fact will be developed in the results. tits
claimed that these have demonstrated that
there is superfciality of examination, and
this is seen in the great number of conflict!
ing patents in Implications for articles
precisely alike, or so similar in oharactdr
that both cannot proftably occupy the same
field in the issuance of letters with OBJ
scure expressions aslto Improvement, and
that by reason of these and similar defects in
ventors are forced and driven into the Courts
for adjudication of rights and infringe
ments. Some inventors go so far as to
charge that it is now rather question of en-
durarce under litigation, of persistence and
perseverance in defense of claim, than a
question as to who holds the right under
letters patent, and that not unfrequeDtly the
claimant is the weaker. To accomplish
reform in the patent system it is proposed
to draw the lines more strictly as to merito.
rious and patentable improvements; to have
greater number of examiners pass upon
each device to make the rule as to "noy.
city more stringent, and to reject those
inventions which, however novel, cannot in
practice be protected and followed up, and
those devices which, however new, are
foolish or trivial-in other words, to ex-
pand the term "new and useful to ex.
press the idea of practical usefulness and
probable adoption by the people. The New
York Times, which has been devoting es.
pecial attention to this subject, suggests a
reversal of the rule of broad construc-
ton for the patentee, and that he be held
to the letter of the claim, thus cutting off
his right to correct errors and supply omis-
sions. The law entities the patentee to
all the benefits of the invention, whether
foreseen or not, and this our contemporary
would reverse also. While it is true that
rights OF the public may possibly be lost
sight Of in protecting the rights of the in
ventor, the suggested remedies 90 too far
If the patentee is not entitled to sll bene.
fits, where shall the line be drawn To
abandon the present rule we believe will
multiply the improvements, and treble the
conflicts. To narrow the law of construc-
ton will result in greater confusion than is
now complained of, for the spirit of the
claim is as essential as the letter. But we are
in accord with the suggestion that the degree
of invention should be made more vital
factor This would work an abandonment
of the uniformity of term practice, under
which the inventive product of lesser USE
fitness may be rewarded disproportionately
to that of greater Importance and usefulness.
1t would insure, also, higher considera.
ton of the combined originality and use
fulness of an invention. The English sys-
tenn of successive fees at intervals, which
the Times desires adopted, has les merits,
and is based on the principle that time is
the best test of value. The subject is
receiving deserved attention and it is prob
able that our patent system viii early
receive such pruning and improvement as
experience has demonstrated to be neces-
sary. Patent solicitors are now urging
that patents, once issued, shall run for the
full term of seventeen years, and this has
given a new life to the public discussion
which began several years since, and has
been prosecuted with more or less vigor
from time to time.