Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-03-18
PATENT OFFICE METHODS
The Interest Of Inventors as Well as the
Public Considered
A Defense of the Present POlicy-The
Duplication of Patents
-
Avoided.

patent oillce Apparently tne WI1teE was
unfamiliar with one side of the question,
and desire. through your paper, to correct
a Misrepresentation which is likely to oc-
cur in the mind of the public if the i'm
preston made by the former article re-
mains unmodiied.
The principle on which the practice of
governments granting patents is based is
that people should be encouraged in in
venting or discovering and giving to the
world new and useful things. The method
Of encouragement is in the form of a re-
ward. This reward Is a grant to the in
ventor of the exclusive right to make, use
and sell his invented thing for given
period of years. The government further
stipulates to protect patentee in these
rights First, refusing to ever grant a
patent to any other party for the same in
vention, and. second. by giving him pro-
lection through the courts from any one
who tnfringes his rights under said patent.
This much by way of preface. Now. let
us see how the government proceeds to
grant these rewards to our inventors and
to protect the inventors in their rights
granted-within> the patent office.
An applicant for patent Is always sup
posed to be an original inventor until it is
proven that another has invented substan-
TALLY the same thing before him.
When an inventor files an application for
patent on an article or device and before
pateHt can in justice be issued to him
must be compared with every patented
thing of similar nature This comparison
must be careful, thorough and exact for
vital reasons, and if it Is found on such
comparison that the thing or any essential
element of it has been previously patented
to an, earlier inventor. a patent for what
ever part of his invention is old must be
refused the applicant. This is positively in
the interest of every party concerned. First
1t Is in the interest of the former inventor
to whom a patent has been granted and
who has right to be protected in his ex-
elusive right to make use and sell the
thing In question.
1t is in the second place in the interest
OF the public The public has through its
government granted to the original inventor
the exclusive right to his invention for a
period of seventeen years on the express
condition that he should give the use Cf
the invention freely to the public after
that that time. 1t Is therefore manifest in
jury to the public to grant at a later date
patent TO another inventor, thus extend
ing the monopoly and locking the public
out OF its rights until the later patent has
expired
In the third place 1t is directly to the in
terest of the later inventor that a patent
should not be granted to him. for if4the in
Vention Is OF any value. such patent
would only involve him in litigation, which
In justice could but end in his defeat and
loss.
In the Interest of the Public.
Thus it is seen that the whole function
Of the patent office Is in the interest of
the public and its inventors. 1t could only
serve itself in opposition to these interests
by granting duplicate patents and thus en-
riching its treasury by means of the fees
received.
This being true the more scrupulously
the office can perform its function the bet
ter 1t serves the public and the inventors
Now. the charge brought against the Of
flee by those critics whose sentiments were
well expressed in the article which ap
peared Saturday, is that the office Is con-
Quoting its examinations with greater
thoroughness and eXactness than formerly
and consequently previous patents are
patent is being sought In a greater num-
Der of applications than has formerly been
the case. and larger proportion of appli-
cations are being rejected. In other words,
under the present administration of the
patent office fewer duplicate patents are
being granted than has previously been
the case. therefore 1t is not so easy to Obj
tain a patent. AS has been shown, this is
entirely in the direction of more efficient
management of the office.
I will not refer in detail to the minor crit
lciSmS made as to the present commits
sioner not having been previously patent
lawyer, and consequently bringing to the
management of the Office the views of a
representative of the public rather than
the bias in favor of his profession. which
a patent lawyer would be likely to have.
Neither to the change in the oersonfief of
the examining corps, which has been made
by the present administration. Nor to the
alleged withdrawal from issue and rejection
of the claims of many applications, which
would have otherwise matured into dupli-
cate and void patents. Ii is enough to say
that in the minds Of those who have no
other interest than the efficient working of
the office, and who are fully cognizant of
the facts in regard to these matters, these
are each subjects on which the public. every
honest inventor and every honorable pat
l. nt,,1n t-1
Effect of the Changes. 40.
The effect of the changes will be to de-
crease materially the litigation In the
courts over interfering patents and to
greatly increase public confidence in the
validity Of patents. This will increase the
value of patents and hence the reward
which true inventors will receive, and it is
believed that this will encourage inventors
in achieving greater results in the wonder
full development of our industrial life which
the last few years has witnessed. This
result, it is believed, will be attained in a
measure impossible under an inefficient,
called liberal administration. in which pat
ents would be granted without thorough
examination and with insufficient regard
for the rights of original inventors.
I frankly admit that the present admins
tration of the office, in reducing the whole
number of patents granted by the larger
number of illegitimate ones which are now
applications, and by decreasing litigation,
will tend to reduce the profits of some
patent lawyers and attorneys and will raise
the standard of efficiency demanded of suc-
cessful attorneys; but this is hardly con-
sideration to be weighed as against the
rights of the public. 1t is certain that the
public, when the facts are correctly under
stood, will give Commissioner Seymour it's
cordial support and approval for the course
he has taken in the management of the
patent Office.
In regard to the new rules recently pro-
mulgated by the commissioner the courts
will undoubtedly decide in due season
whether or not the rules are contrary to
the law. The rules were framed to pre-
vent, if the office has power to do so under
existing law. the repetition of such fraud
and injustice was found by the United
States Supreme Court in recent decision,
in which the question of unwarrantable
delay was involved. A. L. r.
Considerable discussion concerning the
administration of the affairs of the patent
office was excited by the publication of the
article in Saturdays Star. 1t has devel-
oped that there are some patent attorneys
who approve rather than condemn the sys-
TEN which Commissioner Seymour has
adopted for the government of his office,
and the statement inadvertently made in
The Star that every patent attorney was
arrayed against the existing regime In the