The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1896-11-25
THE COMMISSIONER UPHELD
4 DECISION OF lEUOH IMPORTANCE
TO INVENTORS.

Six Months Rule-In Which Applications
for Patents Must be Acted On, Upheld by
the Supreme Court-Of Interest to All
who Desire Prompt Action on Their
Patent Applications.
When the Hon. John S. Seymour Of
Norwalk assumed the office Of commits
sioner of patents he soon discovered
that the rule providing that every APP
plication for a patent should be acted
on within two Years from the last ac-
ton by the patent office opened the way
for an inventor to impose upon the
public by keeping his application pend
ing in the office for several years, thus
getting the practical benefit of the mo-
nopoly which a patent grants for a
much longer term Of years than that
intended by the law.
In order to remedy this defect, Mr..
Seymour adopted the rule requiring ac-
ton on applications for patents within
six months of the last preceding action
of the patent office. This rule at first
NStdoCO ~ S5OOl llStil VI dltNGLSG COIillltSllG
from some of the attorneys practicing
before the patent office, but they were
quick to see the advantage of such q
rule to all honest inventors, which en-
abled them to push through their ap-
plications and set out patents in much
less time than previous to the adoption
of the rule, and they are now as eager
to have the rule become a law as they
were at first to oppose it, and are much
pleased with the declaration of the SUI
| preme court in the decision of the
Drawbaugh case, which probably set
ties the matter so far as the courts are
concerned. While the declaration in
favor of the validity of the rule IS in
form only a dictum, it derives more
| than the usual force of a dictum from
| the fact that the validity of the rule
was fully argued before the court. 1t
| rejected Drawbaugh's claim upon other
| grounds, but declared that "If it We're
| necessary to invoke this principle in
| order to dispose of this case we should
| not hesitate, upon the facts disclosed,
| to approve of the rulings of the Off
| spect.' With the majority of the SUI
| pIeLlG COulI Occupying Ills posltloll,
/ it seems hardly probable that any lit
igant will carry the issue in regard to
| the rule before the court, unless it is
raised as a subsidiary plea in a case
| involving other issues. With the su-
| preme court in favor of the rule, it
would be obviously useless to obtain
| decisions against it from the lower
| courts. There is no doubt that in such
a case Commissioner Seymour would
| seek the decision Of the highest tribu-
nal
Commissioner Seymour is to be con-
| graduated upon the courage and legal
| ability with which he has carried
through this change of the rules. what
/ ever may be thought Of the propriety
of making a change without new legis-
lation. Mr. Seymour evidently real
ICES the objections to legislating by ex-
ecutive order, and has sought the ap-
prevail of congress for the new rule
This approval would very likely have
| been given at the last session, if the
| committee on patents had not seen fiji
to go beyond the conservative limits
| fixed by the commissioner. 1t is de-
sirable, if the limitation of the time fol
action to six months is to be maintain
ed, that it should be embodied in an act
of congress. AS matters now stand, 8
| commissioner of patents of a different
temper than Mr.. Seymour might aban.
don the new rule and cause more con-
| fusion in the practice of the patent of.
flee than the advantage which NIGH
result to applicants and their attor
neys from the change.