Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-03-16

er shall order re-examination of the
case"
Rule 65 of the rules of practice of the
United States patent Office has been for
years almost precisely identical in lam
guage with the statute. 1t reads as fol-
lows:
Whenever, on examination, any claim
of an application is rejected for any reason
whatever, the applicant will be notified
thereof. The reasons for such rejection
will be fully and precisely stated, and such
information and references will be given
as may be useful in aiding the applicant to
judge of the propriety Of prosecuting his
application. or of altering his specification;
and if, after receiving such notice. he shall
persist in his claim, with or without alter
ing his specification, the application will
be re-examined. If upon re-examnation
the claim shall be again rejected, the rea-
sons therefor will be fully and precisely
stated
This rule has long been regarded as one
of the most important in effect in the
office. Commissioner Seymour, however,
has issued circular, in which he an
nounces the repeal of rule IS, and the
adoption of the one which follows in its
place:
AN applicant will be considered to per-
sst in his claim for patent without
altering his specification in case he fail
to act in prosecution of the same for six
months after the office action thereon,
and thereupon the examiner will make
re-examination of the case"
The commissioner orders that this change
attorneys claim it will not take the courts
long to decide whether or not the COM
missioner is powerful enough to disregard
and set aside a deliberate law of Congress.
Patent attorneys also assert that the Ian
guage of the proposed new rule is so
vague and involved that no one can under
stand what it means.
Continuing the Critfcisms.
The action of the commissioner in
char ging the rule governing appeals is also
severely animadverted upon. The old rule,
1884, which governed the prerequisites for
appeals read as follows:
There must have been two reflections of
the claims as originally fled or, If amend
ed in matter of substance. of the amended
claims. and all the claims must have been
passed upon, and all preliminary and inter-
mediate questions relating to matters not
affecting the merits of the invention set
tied, before the case can be appealed to the
eXaminerS-in-chief."
Commissioner Seymour, in the recent Or
der, rescinds this rule, and orders the
adoption of the following in it's place:
I'm appealable cases in which no limit of
appeal is fixed, no appeal will be entertain
ed by any tribunal in the office unless
taken within six months from the action
which puts the case in condition for ap-
peal, unless it be shown to the satisfaction
of the commissioner that such delay was
unavoidable"
Final Summing Up.
Attorneys claim, Furthermore, that their
clients cannot get the same treatment from
the patent Office as they did formerly, and
present figures to support the assertion.
They point out that the average number of
applications for ten years has been IS, ,263,
while the average number of patents
granted was 23,05S. Last year, they say,
there were 3S.4S9 applications besides some
5000 remaining over, which surplus was
reduced during the year to about 1900.
Patents granted were 20,s67, making the
reduction in the proportion about 10 per
cent They further claim that by reason
of Commissioner Seymours policy the re-
duction in the net revenue to the Office in
1894 was almost precisely the amount of
merly allowed. but now rejected. and state
that while the average ret revenue of the
patent office for the last ten years has
been $15S, 743, the revenue for 1894. on an
increased business over the average, was
$S7, 1892. Patent attorneys say that as pat
ents are reduced in number applications
will fall off, as honest attorneys cannot
help telling their clients that matters
which have been always heretofore held
patentable are not so held under the pres
ent system in vogue in the patent office,
and that this is not owing to any change
in the laws governing patents, but is
wholly due to the perso nal views of the
commissioner.
The Star reporter was informed that rep
resentative patent attorneys throughout
the country were preparing to formulate
their specific complaints against Commits
sioner Seymour and submit them to the
President and ask for a change in the di-
rection of the Office. 1t is regarded as
foregone conclusion that any attempt by
Mr.. Seymour to carry out the provisions
of new rule 65, after it goes into effect,
April Is, will be the signal for a transfer
of the entire controversy to the courts for
final settlement.