The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-10-01
THE GERMAN PATENT LAWS.
American Inventors Fail to study
Them in Making Applications.


/ try and Germany. pointing out number
/ Of differences that have been the cause
/ Of much misunderstanding on the part of
I American applicants In Germany. and
+ that have caused the rejection of many
. patents that would have been granted
f had the applications been made properly
I lie says.
1T is "a matter Of common knowledge
among inventors and others who are in
/ terCsted in patent law practice that. while
( the United States and Germany are by
common consent the two countries in
f which inventions are most iuteIliEeuty
ana thoroughly examined, and ia which,
+ therefore, "a patent once obtained is most
/ valuable. there are certain radical differ
I cncus in the methods Of the Patent Of
7 fees at Washington and Berlin which,
I being often misunderstood. lead to disap-
1 poiutmcuts. denominations. and litigation
( which more exact knowledge might have
I aycrtcd.
1t is not uncommon to hear American
and other foreign Inventors complain Of
a hostile and. forbiddins attitude On the
: part Of the examiners at the German
patent Office, as though the duty Of the
I latter were to assume that every inven-
ton presented for patent is defective or
piagiarized until the contrary is proven
ia other words to discourage rather than
B encourage the protection Of meritoriOus
inventions by patent 1t requires but
/ slight experience in such matters 70 show
I that in many. if not a majority, Of the
cases the troubles Of American inventors
! at The German patent office are due to
their failure TO realize the difference in
the two systems OF application, by reason
/ of which an application which would be
...H al O.
fail ut Berlin for iufOTmaIities which any
clerk in patent lawyers office should
recognize and De able TO correct II is
beyond The scope Of a consular report 10
enter eXhaustively into this subject. but
few CT the more obvious differences
may be cited as illustrative examples
In the first place, the foreign inventor
may not deal directly with the imperial
. German patent Office He must be rep
resented here by a patent attorney OF rec
I ogulzed standing. by whom the applica-
ton and specifications are presented. and
through whom additional details or ex-
plantations may be asked for 10y the ex-
amiuers This does not mean however,
( that the foreign inventor need necessarily
Z send his application through a long inter
rational chain Of offices. which may not
Z inlrequeuty involve needless delay and
. expenses. There is Kept at the German
patent office "A list Of recognized patent
attorneys. who are located in Berlon and
throughout the Empire
Secondly. specifications and claims for
patents on American inventions are fire.
guenJly presented IN the form Of trans
IatiOus made by persons who have only
an acquired and superficial knowledge Of
German Such tEduslaIiOus. made with
. the aid of dictionary. mechanically
translate the words and not the meaning
OF important phases. 50 that the speCi-
locations and clauses as filed are often
iuc0mprehensible- This entails additional
correspondence, corrections, and frequent
T. delays which might have been 0bviated.
Many inventors and even some attor-
neys in the United States seem not u un-
derstauG that section of the German
patent law presCribes that an application
Tor patent in this country must be filed
% before the Invention has been disclosed
IN any generally accessible publication
during The past hundred years and % be-
Loie II mas been 50 puDHciy used or eN-
hlDIted IN Germany that anybody skilled
IN The art 10 which II relates could carry
out and utilize tEe invention.
This diners radically from the prOviS-
Ion OF section $50 Of the United States
statute. as revised February =. IsgI which
allows the urst inventor to obtain a pat
elit on ms lnf entlon even after II has been
made known except by previous patent,
ia which case the application must BE-
filed within seven months after IN.
GaJe OF the application for said preyi-
GUS DdteutG provided he files his aD-
plcatiOu within two years from the time
when the invention Was first publicly dis
closed A want OF exact know ledge con-
corning this variation between the pra--
uce OF the Two Countries leads 10 the pre-
sentation Of American claims in Germany
winch cannot be granted, because the an
leceuent record Of the invention in re-
Sprct 10 publicity is in violation Of the
German law.
But the chief difficulty. upon which
more hopes. are wrecked than any other
IS the radically different view taken hy
the American and German authorities as
TO what constitutes a single paIeutable
invention This difficulty is more tSpe-
clally obvious and serious in the case Of a
machine composed Of number Of parts
: on each OF which priority OF invention il
claimed. Patents are granted IN The Uni
tea states for new constructions and com
DludtI0Us which I'm Germany would d.. re-
CURED BY section ~ OF the Imperial Patent
law 10 De divided and covered by several
different patents Consequently. appIica-
lions are often received here which be-
ing substantially TRANSACTIONS Of sueci-
Lcauons prepared for use at Washington
nave To- De rewritten and divided into
lN" or more individual devices before any
examination can take place. This. Of
course entails delay. expense. and intro
duCes new element OF uncertainty into
the case, since one or more of such sep
arate claims, which are all covered bv one
German examiners
Each claim in the United States must
De complete Iu itself. which not only
means that no reference may be- made
from one claim 20 another. hut also fhst
each claim must cover combination
quite separate from and independent Of
the other claims.
quite the opposite is the case i'm Ger
many Here, The first claim is a state
Weut Of the invention. and an other
claims must faI within the same SCOPE
10 try d..