The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-05-16

- 80 "'NiSioh- <Ail tic SOltllitlolls tlc
against the applicant. If. however. his
claim Is rejected upon the second APP
Dllcation, he has the privilege of APP
pealinG, first. to the board Of examiners
in chief. and. from that board, to the
commissioner, and from tho commits
sioner to the Court Of Appeals of the
District Of Columbia. The last is the
end Of the cul-de-sac.
Under the law Of 1861 the applicant
had two years In which to secure IA re-
consideration Of his case. and TWO years
in which to appeal. This gave him time
to attend TO his other business and to
raise money to employ a lawyer or TO
come to Washington himself.
Such was the procedure under Mr.
Seymour's predecessors. They all con-
strued that section of the Revised
Statues which requires an applicant TO
complete his case in two years, and 10
prosecute 1t in two years after any Of
fetal action thereon, as giving the APP
plicant two years in which TO act. An
other section Of the law expressly SAYS
tina; it,. after receiving notice Of rcjec-
ton, the applicant persists in his claim
for patent. the commissioners shall or
der re-eNaminasion of his case
Commissioner Seymour used these
words as a handle with which to change
the whole course OF procedure. He made
a rule that an applicant would be con
tsidcred 10 pcrsis; in his claim for 4 pat
EN-, in case he failed to act in prosccu-
ton Of the same for six months after
notice Of rejection and thereupun The
examiner will make Il REORGANIZATION
of his case.
HURT THE INVENT1O on
He did more than this. He cut down
the Zine for appeals from two years to
SIX months. This would settle the case
OF any poor inventor, who could not
raise the money 10 prosecute his case
within six months. When his cllm has
tX1-p r..in tal In
right to amend II. He mus: stand on the
words of his claim as filed. If no appea!
be taken with in tho six months period
he is out Of court Under the forme.
procedure. an applicants case Was de-
cided w!thou, a hearing on the first
examination. No second examination
was had unit! he requested it, ana he
had two years in which 20 do this lie
had always chance 10 be heard in
support Of his claim. BY the new rule.
Il he fails to act within six months the
same examiner who had decided his case
with argument on The first examinations
passed upon it y second time without
4 hearing. Nincty-ninc times out OF a;
hundred the examiner attirms his former
action. Practically he makes no rc-ex-
animation. The applicants right TO
amend is thus cut off and the case is
III effect, finally decided against him
without his ever having been heard in
his own behalf. With the righ; OF
amendment cut off. the right Of appeal Is
in many cases Of no value But Of what
ever value an appeal may he. the appli-
cant must take it within six months: or
forever lose his case
The order establishing this rule was
received with contempt by the patent.
attorneys. 1t created genuine surprise
IN the patent office. 1t was almost uni
vcrsally regarded as 4 violation Of the
statute and an unWarranicd stretch Of
power. The attorneys thought il too
revolutionary to be carried out but th,
commissioners saw that it was enforced.
The rc-eXaminHtions under the rule
were most of them merely perfume tory
Som" Of the examiners While outwardiy
respecting the rule, regarded il ~ n
farce and Il travcSty on Justice. som" OF
the younger ones passed upon n hun
dred cases in IL single day, regularly
affirming the former reflections Hun
drcns Of poor Inventors had their eases
finally rejected without ev.! hayiu..
been heard in support Of them and
without serious consideration Of thri,
merits. upon the second and final exam
nation
Mr.. Seymour made The patent Office
tribunal that went through the form
OF rcconsidering n case Of its own mot ion
and without argument. merely TO cut off
the right Of the sutton 70 be heard
Many or the inventors thus affected
were too poor to employ attorneys They
llNcd remote from WlSlinEt on, with no
patent attorneys near them and were
not able to come here within six months
TO defend their rights or to preparc
briefs i'll support of them.
BUREAUCRATIC RULE.
Thousands OF cases were thus adjudi-
Gated. The value Of the inventive prop-
erty forfeited by this rule must run III,
into the millions. ]; is an cxtraordinarv
illustration Of the power Of 4 federal
bureau chief. II indicates The grayita-
ton toward dcSpotic rule. LOchran cu1
of thousands of pensioners without n
hearing by his; arbitrary action. Bow
ler's decision in the Treasury Depart
mcnt year ago excited deriSion b,lt
IL kept money for time from men who
were entitled to ii; Scymo,lr's; rule has
forever deprived many Il poor inventor
of his rights.
The rule OF Commissioner Seymour in
this case is parallclcd by another of his
rules. Undoubtedly sliri, Inventors and
investors took ADVANTAGE Of the two
years allowed by the statute. Of 1851 10
kcepther applications for patents pend
ing in the patent oilicc-wilh 4 view Of
Icngthening their monopoly But cases
Of this sort were few. In the second
year Of Mr.. ScymOnrs administration a
circuit court judge decided that Il Ger
tain telephone patent was void for this
reason. No patent had ever been held
bad III the United States on this ground
before. The Circuit Court of Aprcals
DNcrrUlpU the decision ana hpII tho nm