The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-05-16

months. This would settle the case
of any poor inventor, who could not
raise the money to prosecute his case
within six months. When his claim has
been twice rejected he has no longer a
right to amend it. He must stand on
the words of his claim as filed. If no
appeal be taken within the six months
period, he is out Of court. Under the
former procedure, an applicants case
was decided without a hearing on the
first examination. No second examdna-
ton was had until he requested it, and
he had two years in which to do this.
He had always a 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 ex
animation, passes upon it a second time
without a hearing. Ninety-nine times
out of a hundred the examiner affirms
his former action. Practically he makes
no denomination. The applicants
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 ap-
peal Is in many cases of no value. But
of whatever value an appeal may be,
the applicant must take it within six
months or forever lose his case.
The order establishing this Sule was
received with contempt by tfX patent
attorneys. It created genuine surprise
in the patent Office. It was almost uni
versa1ly regarded as a violation Of the
statute and an unwarranted stretch of
power. The attorneys thought it too
revolutionary to be carried out, but the
commissioner saw that it was enforced.
The denominations under the rule
were most of them merely perfunctory.
Some ofsthe examiners, while outwardly
respecting the rule, regarded it as a
farce and a travesty on Justice. Some
OF the younger. ones passed upon; a
hundred cases in a single day, regularly
afhrming the former reflections. Hun
dreds OF poor inventors had their cases
finally rejected without ever having
been heard in support of them, and
without serious consideration of their
merits, upon the second and final ex-
animation
Mr.. Seymour made the patent office
tribunal that went through the form
or reconsidering case of it's own mo-
ton 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 at
torneys. They lived remote from
Washington, with no patent attorneys
near them, and were not able to come
rights or to prepare briefs in support
OF them.
Thousands Of cases were thus adj
Indicated. The value Of the inventive
property forfeited by this rule must
run up into the millions. It is an ex-
traordinary illustration Of the power of
a federal bureau chief. It indicates
the gravitation toward despotic rule
Lockren cut off thousands of pension
~ t.
action. BoWler's decision in the trea-
sury department year ago excited
derision, but it kept money for time
from men who were entitled to it; Sey-
mour's rule has forever deprived many
a poor inventor of his rights.
The rule Of Commissioner Seymour
in this case is paralleled by another
of his rules. Undoubtedly sharp in
ventors 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 frightening their mono
poly. But cases Of this sort were few.
In the second year Of Mr.. Seymour's
administration a circuit court judge
decided that a certain telephone patent
was void for this reason. No patent
had ever been held bad in the United
States on this grond before. The cir
cult court Of appeals overruled the de-
cision and held the patent valid. The
case Is now pending before the SUI
prene court Of the United States. Com
missioner Seymour, inspired by the
decision of the circuit judge, made a
rule that where cases had been pend
ing in the patent Office more than five
years, with the record raising a pre-
sumption Of intentional delays. the ex-
aminer might require the applicant to
show cause why the case was not more
rapidly prosecuted, and reject the case
If the applicant did not make salts
factory showing; this whether the ap-
plicant appeared or not. 1t is not
enough that lie has always acted WIN
in the time required by Mr.. Seymour's
own rules The examiner may think
that the case should have been more
rapidly prosecuted.
This rule practically makes the ex-
anniner an arbitrary Judge, with power
to forfeit the applicants inventive
property, without process, without
q. hearing. The same examiner who
Institutes the forfeiture 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
enemy. This feeling on the part Of the
inventor sometimes excites unfriendli-
ness on the part of the examiner.
Al further illustration on the part Of
a bureau chief: The commissioners Of
patents Is given power to make rules
for the government Of the office. With
in the century, q code has grown up
which at the revision in 1892 numbered
229 rules. Many of these rules are as
old as the office itself. All were well
known to the examiners and to all
competent patent attorneys. The mean
ing Of many a clause has been settled
only by the adtudicating Of series Of
cases over a long period. To know
them thoroughly was the labor of
years. To disturb them was to disturb
property rights and to let In a flood
OF litigation. But with one stroke
Of his pen Mr.. Seymour substituted So
rules Of his own drafting for the 229
which had grown UP during a hundred
years. This was done against the pro-
test Of the most prominent patent at
torneys In Washington, including
several ex-commissionefs OF patents.
} Amos J. Cummings.