Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-03-16
Patent Attorneys and Inventors
Arrayed Against the Patent Office.
CRETICISING TEE COMMISSIONER
Detailed and Specific Charges Are
Freely INDUCED In.
MAY REACH THE COURTS

gathering and growing ever since the pres
ent administration came into power is
breaking around the figure of Commits
sioner John S. Seymour. Every patent at
torney in Washington and every man SIM
ilarly engaged In other cities is adding his
breeze to increase the fury, and the re-
suit may be important before another
moon changes. Almost any patent attor-
ney you meet is willing to discuss the con-
ditions leading up to the present crisis and
to openly assail Mr.. Seymour's manage
ment of the Office from his assumption Of
it to the present time. The gist of these
criticisms may be stated in few words.
The last three commissioners of patents
have been Connecticut men. Mr.. Mitchell,
whom President Harrison appointed n
1889. and Mr.. Simonds, who succeeded him
in 1892, were both patent lawyers. and the
latter, while in Congress. had been chair
man of the House committee on patents.
Mr.. Seymour, who was appointed by Presi-
dent Cleveland, was not a patent lawyer
and disclaimed any special knowledge Of
patent law when he appeared and gave
his testimony before the Senate printing
committee, which was investigating the
matter of the change in the contract for
printing the Patent Office Gazette, anC
which was brought about by sensational
publications. in which it was alleged that
Josiah Quincy had Influenced the action of
the patent office authorities in the matter.
How He Was Selected.
Mr.. Seymour's appointment, it is freely
said, was due to the intimate friendship
existing between himself and President
Cleveland's bosom companion, E. c. Bene-
dict. The latter requested the place for
Mr.. Seymour, and the President, who had
met and liked the latter while with him on
yachting trip on Mr.. Benedicts boat,
granted the favor.
Nv tpo1r oh Sc he
Office it was freely published in the papers
that he intended reforming the system and
undermining the office and getting rid of
the dead wood it contained. Patent attor-
neys assert that Mr.. Seymour began his re-
form with the opinion that inventors as a
rule were deserving of no encouragement,
and that the policy adopted in the pension
office of discrediting every claimant as far
as possible was permitted, if not directed,
to obtain in the patent office.
Inventors Grow Indignant.
Naturally inventors resented this atti-
tude. They hold that the government gives
them nothing except title to what they
have themselves created, If they can keep
their inv entions secret they can enjoy them
indefinitely. 1t was to prevent the secret
practice of valuable improvements, with
possible loss of the invention, they say,
that first induced the grant Of patents, for
patent means public.
ne kHOWleuSe Indt inventors naQ
Of the hostile sentiment held against them
by Commissioner Seymour leaked out, it
Is said, from Mr.. Seymour's sharp rebukes
of the examining corps for too great liber-
ality in the allowance of patents. Ordi-
narily and heretofore the examiners had
to determine what was patentable and
what not. Most of them had come into
office by the civil service route and a ma
jority of them are lawyers. mechanical ex-
perts or graduates from the technical col
leges, and in the main their action had
been considered fair and lawful by former
commissioners, but, it is charged, their
continuance of such course did not please
Commissioner Seymour. He rebuked the
examiners and removed some six or eight
of the examining corps, and is alleged to
have appointed others on whom he could
rely in carrying out his chosen policy. 1t
Is also declared with positiveness that Com
missioner Seymour ordered several hun
dred cases that had been allowed to be
withdrawn and re-eXamined. Since that
time it is asserted that the entire corps
of examiners has been practically under
duress. 1t. is also openly charged that
Commissioner Seymour perceived that
there was still a chance for the inventor
to get a hearing before the board of eX-
aminers-in-chief in case he was not treated
the examiner below, and that he determined
to prevent as much as possible the chances
for a reversal of the decisions of the ex-
aminerS. 49,
Summary Removals Made.
In pursuance of this purpose it is alleged
that he summarily removed two of the
three members of the board of examiners
in chief. These gentlemen were Messrs
Clark and Bates, and there was no limit to
the indignation among patent attorneys
over their sudden dismissal. Their long
service and their complete familiarity with
the practice and law governing the office
had given inventors great confidence in
their judgment. Immediately upon their
removal being announced the commission
er was deluged with letters protesting
against his action. Every patent attorney
In Washington signed paper urgently
praying the action to be rescinded and SIM
liar documents signed by. every practicing
patent attorney in the respective cities
were sent from New York, Philadelphia
Chicago, Boston and wherever the prac-
tice of patent law is followed to any ex-
tent. No notice was taken of these ap-
peals and no reason was assigned for the
removal of the examiners in chief. Two
of the younger members of the examining
were selected as successors to Messrs.
Clark and Bates, and it is understood that
Mr.. Seymour proposes to appoint two
clerks as examiners in defiance of civil
men selected are James T. Newton and l..
H. Campbell. Mr.. Newton was formerly
clerk in the law office of Secretary Hoke
Smith In Atlanta, Ga, and was a law clerk
was appointed chief clerk of the patent
Office position he now holds. Mr.. Camp
bell is law clerk at present in the COM
miSSoner'S ofhce.
Commissioner Abrogntes the Law.
The criticisms do not cease when the
commissioners alleged manipulation of the
personnel of the patent office is concluded
as topic. He is charged with having de-
liberately disregarded and set aside the law
Of the land governing patents and replaced
a United States statute with ukase of his
own.
Section 1894 of the Revised Statutes gives
an inventor two years in which to COM
plete his application or to prosecute the
same after any action taken by the
patent office, Of which notice shall have
been given him. Section 1903 provides as
follows:
Whenever, on examination, any claim
for a patent is rejected, the commissioner
shall notify the applicant thereof, giving
him briefly the reasons for such rejection,
together with such information and refer
ences as may be useful in judging the pro-
priety of renewing his application, or of al
tering his specification. and, if after re-
ceiying such notice the applicant persists
In his claim for patent, with or without