The evening times., 1897-07-03

The firm OF John Wedderburn & Co
patent attorneys, today filed with The
Cor0niss oner of Patents their formal re
| ply TO the charges against them and &c
the order q: the connss oner to show
cause why they should not be debarret
from practice before the Patent Office.
The answeris bulky document of tf rty
five typewriter foolscap pages and about
10000 words Every charge against tht
firm s answered in the reply in full and
specifically.
| As 10 The charge that il "has been the
practice OF the said John Weddeyburn X
Co. not TO make such throug. Iona fide,
conscientious, proper or complete searches
! ia examinations as are contemplated by
clieats, and as are ordinarily made by
reputable attorneys" the answer rerlies
that IL IT, not true, and makes the follow
| ing sta'emsnt'
'.In the management of its business IL
(the firm OF John Wedderburn * Co has
| had q corps of clerks Of twenty-five OF
more at one time, for the purpose of max
ing preliminary examinations or searches.
Most of the searches were as competent as
could be procured, and all were believed Ia
lie competent. The said corporation en-
draNored to procure thoroughly competent
men in this and every other department
OF its business.
'As TO many OF them their competency
could not be called in question. and when
ever IL was discovered that any of these
employees tsearChesD Were inefficient 1r in
90 nlf I'm, al DnI ~ - l-
such searches az should have been made,
Irscrrices were dispensed with.
''Sr riCt ihsi ruCtiOnS were given to n Ike
the searches complete and accurate. More
over. this respondent gave positive instruc-
tions TO the specification writers employed
10y the said corporation that If ever any
inventions were given 30 them Oh which
they were 20 prepare Tie apPllca' 'iDn
papers, and ia their opinion said inventions
Were old or wanting ia paientable novelty,
they Were TO refer the same to the chief
of the Search Departm OF the said cor
pOra' ion for further search before the ap-
plicaFion pa pers Were prepared The num-
Der Of cases in which the Researches I..ade
ia ConstIla1re wiFh these sBktluctio;s>
showed the inventions to be old were COM
para'iyely few, anu in each instance where
the inventions Were held to he anticipated
all fees received from the clients were
prOmp'ly returned to them without any re-
DUss. oT demand on their part that this lie
done''
.i. answer also states that from the
organization Of the company to the date of
the filing OF the charges, the firm ad
filed $500 applications and that 1T is
DOUBTLESS true that in ma king the searches
mistakes may have been made, buy t!aat the
number OF each case is comparatively
small and no greater in proportion than
W. D., Fond th-ci>a az 70. her a II ..rl 'ys
doing d large and miscellaneous patent
sUia .5Jinp business They ask that a com
paii>og 81 the business with that of the pat
cal attorney whose names are signedJn
charge against them be made. and with
also that OF other large attorneys.
In answer TO the charge that the firm
is accustomed to report To clients that
various inventions are patentable with
the result OF inducing such clients toemploy
the firm to file applications for patents,
while the firm knows that such inventions
are not patentable. with intent To defraud
and with the result OF defra uding such
clients, the answer replies:
The question whether or not a device
is patent able. as L. well known TO the Com
missioner aud all patent attorneys. is neces-
sanlv matter of opinion which often diff
feTs even among persons who are perfectly
competent aud capable in such matters
as is evident from the fact that
examiners often change their rulings IN
the same case. from the many reversals OF
the rulings OF the examiner upon the ap-
peal TO the board or to the Commissioner
and it frequently happens that even after
a patent has beea issued IL is deie mined by
The Supreme Court OF the United states
t,,at the device 81 invention is not pa
entahie InfsIlibility in matters Of this