Evening star., 1897-05-15
akin to 1t. The nearest thing that can be
found is used basis for rejection.
Sua~funn CnSa

found is used as basis for rejection.
A Specimen Cnse.
The Oregon man in due time receives the
information that his application has been
examined and rejected. He sends to Wash
ington and gets a copy of the patent upon
which the rejection is based He has been
working at the thing for years. while the
examiner spent perhaps day on it. He
sees at once that an injustice has been done
him. With a superficial resemblance be-
tween his invention and the patent, there
Is vital difference. Often the examiner is
right in rejecting the words OF the claim
filed, while the invention shown In the
drawings and described in the specification
is novel and valuable. If the inventor can
with his model and especially II he can
employ a good lawyer when he gets TO
Washington. he may readily convince the
examiner that he has right to patent
ard that the words Of his original claim
did not accurately describe his invention.
The examiner. while strictly conscientious.
often sympathizes with the inventor, and
is willing to put himself out OF the way to
assist him. In some cases. seeing that the
inventor is too poor to pay an attorney, he
drafts his claims for him. But at the
same time 1t must be remembered that the
same examiner who originally rejected the
application is the Judge who rehears the
case. He is usually slow to reverse his own
prior decision. All the conditions are
against the applicant. If. however, his
claim is rejected upon the second eXamina-
ton, he has the privilege of appealing, first.
to the board of examiners-in-chief, and.
from that board, to the commissioner. and
from the commissioner to the Court of Ap-
pealS 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 a reconsid-
GRAFTON 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 Wash
ington himself.
Changing the Procedure.
Such was the procedure under Mr.. Sey-
mour's predecessors. They all construed
that section Of the Revised Statutes which
requires an applicant to complete his case
in two years. and to prosecute it in two
years after any official action thereon, as
giving the applicant two years In which to
act Another section of the law expressly
says that If, after receiving notice of re1ec-
ton, 1.-The applicant persists in his claim for
a patent, the commissioner shall order
re-examinatton of his case"
Commissioner Seymour used these words
as handle with which to change the
whole course of procedure. He made
to persist in his claim for a patent, in case
he failed to act in prosecution Of the same
for six months after notice Of rejection,
land thereupon the examiner will make a
than this. He cut down the time Tor aro-
peals from two years to six months. This
would settle the case of any poor inventor,
who could not raise the money to prose-
cute his case within six months. When his
claim has been twice rejected he has no
longer right to amend IT. He must stand
on the words of his claim as filed. II no
appeal be taken within the six months
mer procedure, an applicants case was de-
cided without hearing on the first ex-
animation. 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, II 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 q hearing. Ninety
nine times out of a hundred the examiner
affirms his former action. Practically he
makes no re-examinatfon. The applicants 8
right to amend is thus cut of, 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 of, the right of appeal is in many
cases of no value. But of whatever value
an appeal may be. the applicant must take
1t within six months or forever lose his
case.
Mr.. Seymour made the patent office a
tribunal that went through the form of re-
considering a case Of its own motion and
without argument. merely to cut on the
right OF the suitor to be heard. Many of
the inventors thus affected were too Door
to employ attorneys. They lived remote
from Washington. with no patent attor-
neys near them. and, were not able to come
here within six month"; to defend their
rights or to prepare briefs In support of
them.
Power Of = Bareaa Chief.
Thousands OF CASES wsre thus adjudk
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 q . federal bu-