fault at all on the part of any applicant party to the interference. Obviously two years extension would be inadequate to cover this.

H. R. 10154.-I believe the substance of this bill is good and favor its passage. H. R. 10155.-I do not favor the passage of this bill. In so far as the bill proposes to abolish the renewing of patent applications after the expiration of six months' allowance period (sec. 2 of bill) I believe the bill to be good and favor that procedure.

If this renewal after allowance is abolished in this way, naturally arrangement should be made to permit further prosecution of the application if desired, as is done now by a renewal application.

But the first part of the bill, presumably section 1, does not seem to me to cover this at all satisfactorily. In the first place, the period of two months is introduced as an unnecessary limitation, and, in the next place and chiefly, the fee charged is excessive and seems to be absolutely inexplicable. Payment of $25 for the first claim submitted and $5 for each additional claim would make a fee of $120 for examining 20 claims, which in an original application are examined for the filing fee of $25. Since the application has already been examined and allowed there seems to be no reason for any such fee as this for subsequent examination.

I respectfully submit that the desired result can be secured by repealing section 4897 as set forth in section 2 of this bill, and then providing for the renewal prosecution of the application by filing a petition to that effect at any time within the six months' allowance period and that this renewal prosecution be permitted for the fees now charged for an original application; that is, $25 for the first 20 claims and $1 per claim thereafter, provided that this renewal prosecution shall be necessary only where claims presented during the six months' allowance period require further examination and that claims requiring no such examination be permitted entry by amendment as they are now under Patent Office Rule 78.

H. R. 10156.-I do not favor the passage of this bill for it seems to me to be entirely unnecessary and likely to work a hardship in many cases.

H. R. 10157.-I do not favor this bill as I am unable to see any benefit from it. The bill provides that the commissioner " may" order certain applications pending more than three years to be placed in condition for allowance or appeal within any fixed time (p. 3, lines 13-15). Thus there is no obligation on the commissioner to apply the 3-year rule to any application in the Patent Office. It simply permits him to do it if he so desires but even then gives him the discretion of applying it to any one or more applications and not to others, thereby permitting discrimination and selection without any basis.

Furthermore, the rule might be applied, if the bill goes into a law, to applications which have been three years in the office without any fault or delay of the applicant.

The bill would not compel any appreciable advancement of applications in the Patent Office because the 3-year rule is not to be applied generally to applications; and, furthermore, if it were they would not be materially speeded because even after final rejection or appeal, some years might readily elapse because of subsequent proceedings before they would issue as patents.

It is unfortunate these bills all deal with details and not with essentials, and would be of no special benefit even if passed to laws.

We need substantial and basic changes. It is perfectly apparent that our patent system as now conducted is fundamentally unsound and almost impossible. The article entitled "Patent Injustice" in the January, 1932 World's Work, reflects this and expresses views which are fully justified and very generally held. Such being the case, why do we continue indefinitely with such a system? Why not exercise the intelligence for which we as a Nation are noted and secure a first-class, practical, workable system, as we can do readily enough if we make up our minds and then do it.

With this in view I respectfully suggest the following with reference to the Patent Office:

(1) Either make it a mere registration bureau, like our Copyright Bureau, so that patent applications become patents merely by registration, as they do in many foreign countries, such as France, Belgium, Italy, etc.

This will abolish practically all the working force of the Patent Office, leaving merely a registrar and a few clerks to apply numbers and dates to the patents registered and the classification division to receive and classify patents. The whole system will be greatly simplified and the enormous burden

of expense, worry, and delay will be lifted from everyone-the Government, the public, and the inventors and applicants. The applicants or attorneys can make their searches and then prepare and file their specifications and claims. The patents will issue at once, they will be much better patents than are issued now, the Patent Office and attorneys' fees can be one-half of what they are now or even less, the public will immediately know what the patents are, and patentees may immediately begin operations under their patents, and we will have a simple, practical, efficient, inexpensive, and workable system.

66

(2) Or modify the Patent Office procedure so that the office will simply make searches and issue patents with claims for new and useful statutory subject matter, thereby eliminating the interminable wrangling about whether or not invention is involved, provided that patents must issue within three years of their filing dates. This would overcome practically all of the troubles of the present time and be preferable in many ways to the aforesaid registration plan.

Under date of February 25, 1932, I wrote you a letter outlining a bill of this kind. No acknowledgment of the letter has been received, nor any indication of whether the plan is being considered.

Very truly yours,

AMB: GA.

A. MILLER BEDFIELD

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., April 7, 1932.

Hon. W. I. SIROVICH,

Chairman Patents Committee, House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR DOCTOR: The inclosed letter will be of interest to you. If hearings have not yet been printed, and if such action meets with your approval, I would like to have the letter incorporated in the hearings. With good wishes, I am,

Very sincerely yours,

PAUL JOHN KVALE.

Hon. PAUL J. KVALE,

M. & M. WIRE CLAMP Co., Minneapolis, Minn., March 8, 1932.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: My attention has just been called to the House Committee on Patents stating that this committee is now working on new legislation covering the patent laws and their revision and also this committee is now having public hearings at Washington.

I am not able to appear at any of these hearings, but as a manufacturer and inventor who has taken out 13 patents and has several patents pending, I am naturally interested in any revisions that are contemplated. A few suggestions in this letter may be of interest to this committee.

I have had very little experience litigating patents, although I am now litigating one patent. I have among my acquaintances a considerable number of friends who are inventors and in talking with them, I find that the great trouble in litigating a patent is due to the fact that the judges are not qualified to absorb the technical features of mechanical devices unless these features are very simple. This is not my opinion but the opinion of parties I referred to above. In this connection, I would suggest that there should be a special court or special judges for the litigation of patents, and the judges thereof should be trained to be familiar with the operation of mechanical devices as well as persons having legal training, so they can intelligently, with their experience, make a decision with a full understanding of the mechanical questions involved. The present-day expense of litigating a patent is so large that unless a man or a company is very well fixed financially, he hesitates litigating his patent. Attorney's fees, court expenses, trial expenses, are so large that probably the litigation of any single patent involves an expense of two to ten thousand dollars. This is due to the fact that most of the cases are tried away from the seat of business involving considerable travelling expenses to both sides. The attorney's fees are necessarily considerable and run into figures which are appalling from the standpoint of a small business man.

My suggestion of a new set-up in the present courts for litigating patents also involves an additional suggestion regarding the length of time consumed under present-day methods of litigating patents. The Federal courts are now jammed with bootlegging cases, criminal cases, and the regular run of Federal cases. With this set-up it requires over a year before the attorneys can agree on a certain time for the trial. This is many times prolonged and delayed and before a case can be tried in the courts under present-day methods it would require from one to three years. In the meantime, therefore, before an inventor of ordinary means would be able to litigate his patent he would either be tired out with the delay or financially unable to pursue his case further. I am, therefore, of the opinion that if patent litigation is going to stay in the present courts, it should be given what is known in railroading as the "red ball" and rushed through to an early decision. In other words, patent litigation should be shown some preference and should not be subject to the many delays that are under present conditions forced upon it.

It is for these reasons that I suggest what might be called a travelling patent court and central points could be established where hearings of this combined court could be held. Bear in mind that in making this suggestion that I am not criticizing or belittling our judges that are now on the Federal bench trying these cases, but I am looking at the entire matter from a business standpoint. I sincerely believe that our present judicial set-up is the most honest part of the Government we have to-day and these men are absolutely honest in their convictions. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there is an opportunity to assist business by establishing some set-up as suggested. I hope something may be worked out whereby patent litigation may be simplified and the expense to business reduced.

It always has been my understanding that the Patent Office has been one of the paying departments of the Government. This being the case, it seems reasonable that a patent examiner should be paid a compensation in line with his calling as I hear that many men in the Patent Office who are highly capable of performing their duties and have made a study of this work are now underpaid and are leaving the employment of the Government in large numbers, for private business. While considering this angle, I would suggest that a merit system of some character be set up as a pay schedule for competent patent examiners.

Of course, the time consumed in obtaining patents is very great. An application is not acted on for about six months after being filed and for about the same length of time after each response by the applicant. It seems to me that the Patent Office tries too hard to reject everything. Many things are cited which really have nothing to do with the device on which a patent is sought. If the unnecessary rejections could be eliminated, the work of the Patent Office would be greatly reduced. In this connection I am not criticising the Patent Office on account of the delay in issuing patents because they are shorthanded. The six months times given the inventor to reply to an official action is a good thing.

I sincerely trust that in covering this subject I have made a few suggestions that may be taken into consideration with your findings. If you have any questions which you may want answered, I would be very pleased to do so, and I hope that the information in this letter may give you the reaction of an individual inventor which is not biased in any manner by political or patentlawyer judgment.

I remain, very truly yours,

M & M WIRE CLAMP Co.,

H. O. MCMILLAN, President.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE, Washington, D. C., April 6, 1932.

Hon. WILLIAM I. SIROVICH,

Chairman Committee on Patents, House of Representatives.

DEAR COLLEAGUE: There will be inclosed a most interesting letter from a resident of my State which refers to certain difficulties in a matter of accepting applications for patents.

I know you will be glad to give it your close attention and perhaps to in corporate the message in appropriate committee hearings.

With kind regards, I am,

Very sincerely yours,

PAUL JOHN KVALE.

MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., March 11, 1932.

Hon, PAUL J. KVALE,
House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: We have noticed that the Patent Committee of the House of Representatives welcomes comments and suggestions relative to the patent system. Our company is engaged in manufacturing various kinds of oil-burning equipment for industrial and railroad work, and a great many of our devices are patented. The writer is of the opinion, however, that for some reason the Patent Office is too much inclined to reject applications. This may be due to a lack of acquaintance with the actual practices in the various arts, or to a general policy of the Patent Office. Several years ago the writer invented a new burner or torch of the type used in heat-treating furnaces. Such burners use a very low grade heavy oil. These burners are of the vacuum type in which the oil is drawn from the tanks by a vacuum produced by the compressed air used. With previous burners the flow of oil was regulated by a needle valve and the air and oil burners had to be adjusted to get the proper vacuum. The low grade heavy oil contains lumps and these would collect at the oil valve and form an obstruction. It was necessary at short intervals to back off the oil valve to free this obstruction, and then readjust it. In one commercial burner this was done about every 3 or 4 minutes, and in the most improved type it had to be done every 9 or 10 minutes. This thus required the almost constant attention of an operator. Adjusting the oil valve allowed a surplus of oil to pass through, thus giving the wrong kind of a flame in the furnace and producing an objectionable atmosphere which affected the castings being treated, causing them to scale. In the burner invented by the writer the vacuum was controlled in an entirely different manner and an unobstructed path was furnished for the oil. Once adjusted, the burner would run for hours without any attention, and would hold the temperature of the furnace surprisingly uniform, as shown by pyrometer charts. The burner was unquestionably a great advance in the art, and has been a great commercial success. Our patent attorney said that it was one of the two greatest inventions he had ever been in contact with, and he has handled and been connected with hundreds.

When the application was filed it was rejected on several patents, the chief one of which was an old patent showing a very special kind of carbureter for an automobile. Now, a carbureter for an automobile uses a highly refined and very volatile fuel. Such a carbureter would not work two seconds if the heavy oil used in the furnace burner were placed therein. Such a rejection was ridiculous, as the carbureter was an entirely different kind of a device. However, the application was finally rejected, and when we filed an appeal the examiner, apparently fearful of his rejection, cited a new additional patent. This permitted us to withdraw the appeal, which we did, and we again prosecuted the application for some time. A couple of more patents were cited, and the application was again rejected. It was only after our attorney went to Washington and had a personal interview with the examiner and strenuously pointed out our great improvement, that we were able to secure an allowance of the application. There was absolutely nothing like the invention, and the application should have been allowed at once.

In the last few years we have developed a device for kindling fires in locomotives. We filed an application on this. The Patent Office cited an old patent which did show a locomotive kindler. Our kindler, however, is a great improvement over the old one, and it seems to me that we are clearly entitled to some claims which differentiate from the old patent. However, the Patent Office has entirely rejected the application and has combined with the old patent showing a locomotive kindler, various other patents showing cutting torches (an entirely different device), a paint sprayer (another entirely different device which should not be cited), and various furnace structures, etc. Our attorneys prosecuted an appeal on this application, but the board of appeals affirmed the rejection of the examiner. In the present strenuous times in the business world, we do not feel able to prosecute the application further.

I understand that these questions are supposed to be decided in a judicial way according to established practice. However, it seems entirely wrong and unfair to combine cutting torches, paint sprayers, and furnace structures with an old obsolete locomotive kindler in order to anticipate a practical successsful and efficient locomotive kindler capable of use with a modern locomotive.

It seems to the writer that the Patent Office should have a more friendly and helpful attitude toward the inventor. If one starts out with the idea of rejecting and saying there is no invention in view of this and that, practically every modern device can be dissected and parts thereof found in various places. It is easy to do this after the inventor has worked a long time to produce something new and his company has spent money in developing it. Unless the inventor has produced the device there would be no basis for ever collecting and assembling the former things. It is only after seeing the new thing that this idea could enter anyone's mind. Such a policy is discouraging to inventors and is not assisting in the development of new devices.

After an inventor and his company have spent time and money in developing something new the Patent Office should be more helpful in obtaining proper patent protection for it instead of beginning a campaign of rejection on different and unrelated things.

We are merely expressig our views in the matter in order that some improvement may possibly be made.

Yours very truly,

JOHNSTON MANUFACTURING CO., By W. E. JOHNSTON, President.

CHICAGO, March 24, 1932.

Hon. WILLIAM I. SIROVICH,

Chairman Committee on Patents, House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Permit me to thank you for your courteous invitation to appear before the Committee on Patents to express my opinion of the bills recently introduced concerning patent law. It is with regret that I inform you that it will be impossible for me to be present on the dates mentioned in your letter. Before closing, however, I wish to state that I am strongly in favor of all the measures that have been introduced and believe that your committee is to be most thoroughly complimented for the excellent work it has done.

There are many other improvements that I think would be of great benefit to our patent system, but since these are set forth at length in my book, The United States Patent Law System, to which you kindly referred during the recent hearings, I will not bore you with reciting them. This fact, however, is definitely established: The patent system is meeting severe criticism from the bar, the inventor, and the industrialist. There is a big job to be done before this adverse criticism will be dissipated. The political party that accomplishes this important work will have rendered the country a distinguished service and should win the gratitude of those most closely associated with the patent system. The notable task of revising the patent system will, it seems, fall to the Democrats, and I know you propose to use all of your energies to see that the opportunity is not wasted. In this respect be assured that you will have my wholehearted sympathy and support.

I am on this date mailing to the Journal of the Patent Office Society an article which deals with the various bills introduced by your committee, stamping my approval on each, giving a few words in explanation and support of the measures, and containing congratulatory remarks directed to the work of your committee. The Journal has a rather wide circulation in patent law circles and I am hopeful that my article will be the first to reach it, dealing with these new proposals. If it is, it should aid somewhat in securing the indorsement of the patent bar.

With kind regards, I remain
Cordially yours,

R. SPENCER.

DETROIT, MICH., March 29, 1932.

PATENTS COMMITTEE,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We are most emphatically in favor of H. R. 10152, which empowers the assignee of an inventor to file divisional, continuation, renewal, and reissue applications; H. R. 10154, which permits a single signature in patent applications and which validates a joint patent for a sole invention; H. R. 10156, which limits inventors to priority of two years prior to their filing date; and H. R. 10157, which will expedite the prosecution of patent applications pending more than three years.