The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-05-18
INVENTORS VICISSITUDES.
In Many Cases Careless Bureau Chief
The ArbiterS Of Their Fate.
The SPIRIT OF THE LAW VIOLATED.
How Commissioner Seymour Juggied the
Words In Order to Change the whole
Course OF Procedure-Six Months
For Two Years

And stiu The assault on the civil service
wall OF circum yallation continues. Ihere
is more trepidatiOn among those VINO
are in Office, and an increase in indlgna-
ton among those who are out OF H. AT
the skirt OF the array OF office seekers
Is the usual influx OF inventors. Botn
Office seekers and inventors are at the
mercy in many cases of bureau chief
tains. There seems 10 be a tendency
toward despotc rule. not only in the
House. but IN the departments as well.
Congress may pass laws at Will, ana
the President may sign them, but mat
is not the end o. ~ Some obscure cor
poral in legislation, quartered in Tie
Treasury Department or elsewhere, Will
take it upon himself TO declare them UNI
constitutional, without waiting for ac-
ton by the Supreme Court.
There has been q change in the pat
ent Office. Resolute John 5. seymour
has retired and genial Ben. Butterworth
has again resumed the toga. Applicants
and attorneys were nearly all dissaris-
fed with Mr.. Seymours administration.
They regarded him as arbitrary, II not
unreasonable Before his incumbency, APP
plicants for patents were allowed two
years in which 70 complete their appn-
cations. When completed they w>-e eX-
amined in due course. II the applica-
ton was rejected the inventor was al
lowed two years in which to amend his
case or seek reconsideration. All this
was done under an act OF Congress pass
ed in 1861
Occasionally a shrewd inventor or At
torney applied the law 10 his own advan-
tage and the disadvantage Of the public.
Through technicalities he kept his appn-
cation pending for years. But there
were very few such cases-nOJ one IN
hundred Mr.. Seymour recommended 10
Congress that II enact legislation when
would stop such practices. by shorten
ing the time allowed an inventor IN
which to complete and prosecute ms
case Congress paid no attention 10 the
recommendation. ThereupOn Commission
er Seymour determined TO apply rem
edy without waiting for Congress.
SERIOUS HARDSHlPS
The applications Tor patents filed av-
erage about l25 a day. There are thirty
five principal examiners, with perhaps
200 assistants. Every examiner ana
every assistant examiner has his own
speciality. Let us take the case, say, Oh
a poor inventor living in oregon. lie
makes a valuable invention and desires
10 obtain a patent. He sends his appli-
cation with si5 to the commissioner OF
patents. II is referred TO the examiner
having charge OF that peculiar class OF
inventions. Ii is his duty TO reject H.
IL anything can be found on which 10
base a rejection. Nearly 6OO.ODO patents
have been granted In the United states,
and probably more than a million IN the
rest OF the world. II any Of these an
Jcipate the invention. ~,e examiner must
reject the application. II is not neces-
sary that exactly the same thing should
have existed before, for II anything SUD
stantially similar can be found the APP
plicant must 90 to the wall But more
than this if anything similar has been
described in any printed publication, IN
any language, anywhere In the world,
or II without being patented or descrlo-
ed in print, it has been used anywhere
in the United States, the examiner
should reject.
The rub comes all the time upon tie
degree Of similarity which will consu-
tute an anticipation Of the invention.
A tremendous responsibility 1t Will be
seen IS thus thrown upon the exam
liner. He wants 10 be safe. IL Is botn
his pride and his duty not TO allow a
patent to go out that ought 70 nave
been rejected. The consequence is tnat
a great many examiners reject almost
everything on the first examination. NO
matter how broadly new the invention
may be. something can always be found
that is akin to il. The nearest thing
that can be found is used as a basis Tor
rejection.
ALMOST AN IMPOSSIBILITY.
The Oregon man in due time receives
the information that his application has
been examined and rejected lie sends
49,. rrnfa a
patent upon which the rejection is basec.
He has been working at the thing Tor
years. while the examiner spent per-
haps a day on it. He sees at once that
an Injustice hasa been done him. with
superficial resemblance between his IN
vention and the patent, there IS vital
difference. often the examiner Is right
in rejecting the words of the claim MED,
while the invention shown in the draw
ings and described I'm the specification
IS novel and valuable. II the inventor
can raise the money TO come 10 WASH
ington with his model, and especially II
he can employ a good lawyer when ne
gets to Washington, he may readily con-
vince the examiner that he has risNt
TO a patent and that the words OF ms
original claim did not accurately de-
scribe his invention. The examiner
while strictly conscientious, often sym
pathlzes with the inventor. and IS VIII
ing 10 put himself out Of the way 70
assist HIM In some cases seeing that
the inventor is too poor 10 pay an attor-
nev. he drafts his claims Tor him. But
AT the same time IL must be remember
ed that the same examiner who origi-
naIly rejected the application IS the Judge
who rehears the case lie is usually
slow TO reverse his own prior decision.
An the conditions are against the apph-
cant. II. however his claim IS rejected
upon the second examination, he mas
the privilege Of appealing nrst 10 ee
board OF examiners-in-chief and, from
that board. 10 the commissioner ana
from the commissioner to the Court Oh
Appeals Of the District OF Columbia. Inc
last is the end Of the cul-de-sac.
Under the law of 1861 the applicant
had two years in which 10 secure a re-
consideration OF his case. and two years
in which to appeal. This gave him time
10 attend TO his other business and 10
raise money to employ a lawyer or 10
come 10 Washington himself.
such was the procedure under Mr..
sevmour's predecessors. They all con-
strued that section Of the Revised stat
utes which requires an applicant 70 COM
plete his case in two years, ana to pros
ecute II in two years after any ofticiai
action thereon as giving the applicant
two years in which TO act Another sec
ton OF the law expressly says that II,
after receiving notice OF rejection, tine
applicant persists in his claim Tor pat
ent. the commissioner shan order re-