Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-09-24
American Inventors Are
Checked by Patent Office
To the Editor OF The star.

To the Editor Of The Star:
In The Star Of September 10 I note
letter by Joseph Rossman, bearing
the caption american Inventors Work
lor Humanity" The subject matter of
the Rossman letter particularly in
tereSted me because I happen to be
one OF the class regarding whom your
correspondent writes.
l nave often wondered why the COM
munity insists upon making the way
OF the inventor so hard at every step
l suppose 1t is largely due to the fact
That most people fear and distrust all
innovations. They hate to change their
customary ways of doing things, be-
cause a new way requires more thought
than Jogging along in the we'll worn
rutS of habit
But even so, one would naturally ex-
pect that a Government institution or
gained to encourage inventors and the
production of inventions would not de-
llberately add to the handicaps and
hardshipS of the inventor. And that at
least in the Patent Office would be
found recognition of the value of in
ventorS to the community, and also a
system facilitating inventors efforts and
enterprise
The Patent ONCE, on the contrary,
seems to be motivated by the idea of
discouraging the inventor, for applying
Tor patent Is one of the most COM
plicated operations in the whole range
of legal procedure. 1t is a practical
impoSsibility for an inventor to procure
patent without the aid of high-priced
specialized legal assistance, and even
then the chances are many to one
against an inventors securing those
rights supposed to be accorded to him
by the patent statutes.
Not only are the rules of practice"
in the Patent Office utterly complicated
put It's antlquated conventions are based
upon obsolete psychology and notions
that are a hundred years behind the
times.
To give but one example, the patent
statutes require that a device to be
patentable shall fulfill three require
ments-it must be new, it must be use
tul, 1T must be an invention.
TO ordinary common sense 1t would
seem that these seemingly simple re-
qulrements could easily be determined,
and so far as the first two are con-
cerned there is little difficulty. But
when 1t comes to the third requirement
1nsuperable difficulty is encountered
Tor nobody, whether layman, technical
expert, psychologist or even the Su-
preme Court of the United States. to
which is referred the final determine
ton OF patent issues, knows what is
invention!
None the less, examiners in the Patent
once, while admitting the novelty and
utility of a device, refuse to grant
patent solely on the ground that it
lacks invention" And when the ap-
plicant reasonably asks just what it is
that the device lacks or what the ex-
aminer means when he uses the word
invention" the Patent ONCE calmly
ignores this reasonable request for in
formation, and patent protection is ar
bitrarily refused for-"lack of inven-
tion''
Thus the very institution organized
to encourage inventors and the pro-
duction of inventions deliberately Gre
ates more stumbling blocks and pitfalls
in the path of the inventor, and him
ders, hampers and discourages the in
ventor's effort to benefit humanity.
hope that the timely letter of Joseph
Rossnan may attract the attention of
our lawmakers and those in the Patent
ONCE charged with the duty Of encour-
aging inventors, to the end that the
inventor may be relieved of at least
some wholly unnecessary handicapS and
hardshlps. WILLIAM H. SMYTH.
Berkeley, Calf.