The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-05-16

: case
was decided without hearing on the first
examination No second examination was
had until he requested 1t, and he had two
years in which to do this. He had always
chance to be heard in support of his
case. BY the new rule, if he fails to act
within six months, the same examiner who
has decided his case without argument on
the first examination, passes upon 1t a
second time without a hearing. Ninety
nine times ont of a hundred the examiner
attirms his former action. Practically he
makes no denomination. The applicant S
right to amend is thus cut off. and the
case is, in effect. finally decided against
him, without his ever having been heard
in his own behalf With the right of
amendment cut off. the right of appeal is
in many cases of no value. But Of what
ever value an appeal may be, the appl-
cant must take il within six months or for
ever lose his case.
The order establishing this rule was re-
ceived with contempt by the patent attor-
neys. 1t created genuine surprise in the
patent office. 1t was almost universally
regarded as a violation of the statute and
an unwarranted stretch of power The at
torneys thought it too revolutionary to be
carried out. but the commissioner saw that
it was enforced. The denominations I'M
der the rule were most of them merely
perfunctory. Some of the examiners,
garded 1t as farce and travesty on JUS
tice. Some of the younger ones passed
upon hundred cases in a single day, reg
ular.y affirming the former reflections.
Hundreds of poor inventors had their
cases finally rejected without ever having
been heard in support Of them. and with
out serious consideration of their merits,
upon the second and final examination.
Mr.. Seymour made the patent Office a
tribunal that went through the form of re-
considering case of its own motion and
without argument merely to cut off the
right of the sutton. to be~heard. Many Of
the inventors thus affected were too poor
to employ attorneys. They lived remote
from Washington, with no patent attor-
neys near them, and 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 adjudi-
Gated. The value of the inventive prop
erty forfeited by this rule must run up
into the millions. 1t is an extraordinary
illustration of the power of a federal bu-
reau chief. 1t indicates the gravitation
towards despotic rule. Lochran cut off
thousands of pensioners without a hearing
by his arbitrary action. Hawley's decision
in the treasury department year ago
excited derision, but it kept money for a
time from men who were entitled to Il;
a poor inevntor of his rights.
The rule of Commissioner Seymour in
this case is paralleled by another of his
rules. Undoubtedly sharp inventors and
/ investors took advantage of the two years
| allowed by the statute of 1861 to keep
their applications for patents pending in
the patent office, with view of lengthen-
ing their monopoly. But cases of this sort
we're few. In the second year of Mr..
Seymour's administration circuit court
judge decided that certain telephone
patent was void for this reason. No pat
ent had ever been held bad in the United
States on this ground before. The circuit
court of appeals overruled the decision
and held the patent valid. The case is
now pending before the supreme court of
| the United States. Commissioner Sey-
mOur inspired by the decision of the cir
cult judge, made a rule that where cases
had been pending in the patent office for
| more than five years, y with the record
raising a presumption of intentional de-
| lays, the examiner might require the APP
plicant to show cause why the case was
not more rapidly prosecuted, and reject
the case if the applicant did not make a
| satisfactory showing this whether the
! applicant appeared or not. 1t is not
enough that he has always acted within
the time required by Mr.. Seymours own
| rules. The examiner may think that the
ecuted. 3. Ysdsi $50
This rule practically makes the exam
iner an arbitrary judge with power to
| forfeit the applicants inventive property,
without process, without a jury, without
a trial, and even without hearing The
same examiner who Institutes the forfeit
ure proceedings acts as Judge to decide
the case. More than this, all the delays
in the case may possibly have been due
more to the unjust or incorrect rulings of
| the examiner himself than to any fault
| upon the part of the applicant Often
inventors treat the examiner as their en-
envy. This feeling on the part of the IN
ventor sometimes eXcites unfriendhness
on the part Of the examiner
A further illustration of the power of a
bureau chief: The commissioner Of pat
ents is given power to make rules for the
government of the office. Within the CEN
fury, code has grown up, which, at the
revision in 1892, numbered 229 rules. Many
of these rules are as Old as the office IT.
self All were well known to the examfn-
ers and to all competent patent attorneys.
The meaning of many clause has
been settled only by the adjudcating of a
series of feases over a long period. To
know them thoroughly was the labor of
years. To disturb them was 70 disturb
property rights and to let i'm food of It'll
cation. But with one stroke of his pen
Mr.. Seymour substituted SO rules Of his
own drafting for the 20 which had grown
up during hundred years. This was done
against the protest OF the most prominent
patent attorneys i'm Washington. including
several ex-commissioners OF patents.
Seymour's action is a striking illustra
ton OF the power of a bureau chief. If
the examples set by Lochran, Bowler Sey-
mOur and others were to be followed BY
bureau chiefs generally, congress might
as well retire from business and leave
the field of legislation to the minor officers
charged with carrying out the laws.
Amos j. Cummings.