The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-05-18

as filed. IL no appeal be taken WITHIN
the six months period, he is out OF court.
Under the former procedure, an appH-
cants case was decided without a near
ing on the first examination. NO second
examination was had until he requested
II, and he had two years In when 10
do this lie had always a chance 10 DC
heard in support of his case. by the
new rule. If he fails TO act WITHIN SIX
months the same examiner who mas de-
cided his case without argument on the
first examination passes upon II sec
ond time without n hearing. Ninety
nine times out of a hundred the examiner
afiirms his former action. Practically
he makes no denomination. Inc aD-
plcants right 10 amend is thus cut on
and the case Is, in effect, finally decldVd
against him, without his ever having
been heard in his own behalf. W1D the
right OF amendment cut on, tho right OF
appeal Is in many cases o. no value
But Of whatever value an appeal may be-
the applicant must take 1t within SIX
months or forever lose MS case.
The order establishing this rule was
received with contempt by the patent
attorneys. IL created genuine surprise
in the patent Ofulo. IL was almost UNI
versally regarded as n violation or tae
statute and an unwarranted stretch OF
power The attorneys thought II 100
revolutionary to be carried out, but me
commissioner saw that 1t was enforced.
The re-examinations under the rule were
most OF them merely perfunctory. Some
Of the examiners, while outwardly re-
specting the rule regarded it as farce
and a travesty on justice. Some OF TIE
a
cases I'm single day. regularly Affirming
the former reflections. hundreds OF poor
inventors had their cases finally rejected
without ever having been heard in sup
port Of them. and without serious con-
sideration Of their merits upon the sec
ond and final examination.
MERELY TO CUT OFF.
Mr.. Seymour made tho patent ofiice-a
tribunal that went through the form Of re-
considering a case of its own motion
and without argument, merely 10 cut
off the right of the sutton TO be neard.
Many Of the inventors thus affected were
too poor TO employ attorneys Ihry
lived remote from Washington, with no
patent attorneys near them. ana were
not able to come here within six months
to defend their rights or TO prepare
briefs in support Of them.
Thousands Of cases were thus adJudl-
Gated. The value of the inventive prop
erty forfeited by this rule must run up
into the millions. 1t is an extraordinary
Illustration CT the power OF q federal
burau chief. il Indicates the gravitation
toward despOuc rule. Lochran cut OF
thousands of pensioners without hear
ing by his arbitrary action. BOWERS
decision I'm the Treasury Department a
.HraF
money for time from men who were
entitled TO il Seymours rule has forever
deprived many a poor inventor OF ms
rights.
The rule Of Commissioner Seymour IN
this case is parallelled by another OF ms
rules. Undoubtedly sharp inventors ana
investors took advantage OF the two
years allowed by the statute of 1861 10
keep their applications for patents pend
ing i'm the patent Office, with a view or
lengthenlng their monopoly. But cases
OF this sort were few. In the second year
of Mr.. Seymour's administration cIr-
cult court judge decided that certain
telephone patent was void for this rea-
son. No patent had ever been held bad
i'm the United States on this ground be-
fore. The Circuit Court Of Appeals over
ruled the decision and held the patent
valid The case is now pending before
the Supreme Court OF the United states.
Commissioner Seymour. inspired by the
decision Of thee ircuit judge. made n rule
that where cases had been pending IN
the patent office more than i've years,
with the record raising n presumption
OF intentional delays, the examiner might
require the applicant 70 show cause why
the case was not more rapidly prosecuted,
d Aa
not make a satisfactory showing; TINS
whether the applicant appeared or not
Il is not enough that he has always act
ed within the time required by Mr.. Sey-
mour's own rules. The examiner may
think that the case should nave been
more rapidly prosecuted.
AN ARBITRARY JUDGE.
This rule practically makes the exam
incr an arbitrary judge with power 20
forfeit the applicants inventive proper
ty. without process without jury
without a trial. ana even without hear
ing. The same examiner who institutes
the forfeiture proceedings acts as Judge
TO decide the case. More than this, an
the DELAYS I'm the case may possibly nave
been due more 10 the unjust or incorrect
rulings OF the examiner himself than 70
any fault upon the part OF the apph-
cant. OFTEN inventors treat the examiner
as their enemy. This feeling on the part
Of the inventor sometimes eNcites uh-
frlendllness on the part OF the exam
iner.
A further illustration Of the power OF
a bureau thief. The commissioner or
patents IS given power TO make ruie5
for the government Of the office With
in the century code has grown up
ubich nj the revision in 1872 numbered
22q rules Many Of these rules are as ola
as the Office itself All were well known
IN tho examiners and 10 all competent
natout attorneys The meaning Of many
a clause has been settled on by the ah-