certain claims. They thought that they were in the right way protecting inventions they have made as American inventors. The Patent Office officials recently thought that those claims were not the right kind of claims under the prior art. A little while ago, last December, one of the judges of the District of Columbia said, "Those are beautiful claims; they are invention over the prior art, and I order you, Mr. Commissioner of Patents, to allow them to this person. That originated over in Germany. There are some of those people right here now that within the last year would deny to our American inventors that which they have been trying to get for a long time, but they were not smart enough or lucky enough for Judge Adkins to say they ought to have it. There are many things that can come out and work a dire hardship from the bills before We believe that we can not give too much extra study to them within a limited and reasonable length of time.

us.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Zwingenberger.

Mr. OTTO K. ZWINGENBERGER. I have an appointment in a short time. I can be here again.

The CHAIRMAN. We can hear you to-morrow morning.

Mr. ZWINGENBERGER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The American Engineering Council.

STATEMENT OF L. W. WALLACE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AMERICAN ENGINEERING COUNCIL

Mr. WALLACE. I feel I am sort of a thorn in a flower garden this morning with all these distinguished members of the bar and I am just a plain engineer. I speak as the representative of the American Engineering Council, which in the engineering profession is equivalent to the Bar Association of the legal profession. H. R. 10152, introduced by Mr. Underwood, we approve; H. R. 10153, introduced by Mr. Sirovich, we most emphatically approve, and may I say that I was a member of the Patent Office procedure committee appointed that did that study in the Patent Office several years ago, and, personally, I want to say the same thing about 10153 that Mr. Bailey Brown said. We were cocommittee members in that, and I think I have full appreciation of the significance or the import of the bill, H. R. 10153. H. R. 10154, by Mr. Rich, we approve, but one member of our patent committee suggested possibly that the language "persons skilled in the art " should be further defined in order to bring about less confusion. H. R. 10155, introduced by Mr. Goodwin, we have no objection to, but have no specific thought about it. We approve H. R. 10156, introduced by Mr. Kelly. H. R. 10157, introduced by Mr. Dies, we most emphatically approve that bill, and if reported out by the committee we will work for it very actively. I think that is an important measure along with yours. Those two are very important bills. As a member of the Patent Office procedure committee, I personally can indorse that bill. H. R. 10741, by Doctor Sirovich, to provide a permanent force to classify patents, we most emphatically approve that bill, and if reported out by the committee, will actively support it. That is a very important

measure.

The CHAIRMAN. And the Vestal bill, of course, you approve?

Mr. WALLACE. Is that the old Cramton bill?

The CHAIRMAN. To give lawyers the right to use the name of counsellor and attorney instead of the way it is now.

Mr. WALLACE. Yes; we have supported that legislation right along. We would have to support that actively and we are very much interested in this classifying matter.

The CHAIRMAN. May I suggest to you and Mr. Jo Bailey Brown, if you are in favor of helping the classifying committee to bring about greater efficiency for the department of patents, that your organization and others write to the chairman of the Civil Service Committee, asking him to bring up that bill so that we can help to improve the patent department, because that bill will have to come up before the Civil Service Committee, on which I am one of the ranking members. I would be glad to help it, and I think if you sent letters from all your organizations requesting the Civil Service Committee to bring up this bill, we could help to improve the workings of the efficiency and personnel of the Patent Office. The chairman of that committee is Mr. Lamar Jeffers.

Mr. WALLACE. That is on the classifying bill.

The CHAIRMAN. And I will request you to do it as quickly as

you can.

Mr. NEAVE. That is H. R. 10741.

Mr. WALLACE. That is all I wish to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Is there any one else to be heard?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT WATSON, REPRESENTING AMERICAN PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. WATSON. The association, which consists of between 600 and 700 members has printed and sent out to its members these five bills for a vote. The vote is not altogether in yet and like other votes there might be a landslide, but I will give you the figures as they are to-day without comment.

The CHAIRMAN. Whatever you wish.

Mr. WATSON. On H. R. 10152, introduced by Mr. Underwood, the vote is: yes, 248; no, 38; approval, 248; disapproval, 38. On H. R. 10153, introduced by Mr. Sirovich, the vote is 63 favorable, 221 unfavorable. On H. R. 10154, introduced by Mr. Rich, the vote stands 249 favorable, 36 against. On H. R. 10155, by Mr. Goodwin, the vote is 44 favorable, 240 against. On H. R. 10156, the vote is 90 favorable.

The CHAIRMAN. By whom is that bill?

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Kelly, 90 favorable and 187 against. H. R. 10157, the Dies bill, 115 favorable, 167 against. The CHAIRMAN. How do you account for the your organization and these great organizations, can Bar and the other patent bar associations? bers lawyers or are they solicitors and agents counsellors?

discrepancy between such as the AmeriAre all your memand barristers and

Mr. WATSON. The members of the American Patent Law Association are all lawyers.

The CHAIRMAN. Admitted to the bar?

117104-32-4

Mr. WATSON. Admitted to the bar except a few exceptional men who can produce evidence of exceptional ability in those lines.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the discrepancy due to, then, in your opinion?

Mr. WATSON. Between the two associations?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WATSON. Of course, I am a member of both but I can not speak for either of them. I do know this, that the American Patent Law Association is very strict in the admission of its members. Their names are published for opposition when they come in and their literature, if they have any, is scrutinized; in other words, it is a select body and the largest organization. When we take up a matter of this kind we reprint the bills that come here and we send them out to every member with a letter. These bills are generally simple. They do not require any explanatory letter and we just send them out for a yes or no vote, so that they are brought to the personal attention of somewhere between six hundred and seven hundred members, and, as I say, this vote is not finished because we gave them until the 8th of April to answer, all the time we can give them, because some of our members are out on the Pacific coast.

66

66

The CHAIRMAN. Since your organization has indorsed a number of other bills, it will be left to the committee to decide what is best for the country.

FULL VOTE OF AMERICAN PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION ON PATENT BILLS UNDER DISCUSSION

AMERICAN PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D. C., April 20, 1932.

Hon. WILLIAM I. SIROVICH,
Chairman House Committee on Patents,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Prior to the hearings before your committee on March 30-31, 1932, copies of the following bills were sent out to the 650 patent lawyers composing the American Patent Law Association, for a referendum vote: Underwood bill, H. R. 10152; Sirovich bill, H. R. 10153; Rich bill, H. R. 10154; Goodwin bill, H. R. 10155; Kelly bill, H. R. 10156; Dies bill, 10157.

It requires about three weeks time to print and obtain a vote from our members, who are scattered from coast to coast, and the full vote had not been returned at the time of the hearings. Nevertheless, the vote as far as it had proceeded was reported to your committee on March 31, 1932.

On behalf of the association, we now beg to report the complete vote of the association on the above bills. Since the hearings, substitute bills have been introduced and these are referred to below to connect them with the original bills upon which the vote was taken.

Three hundred and fifty members voted. It is submitted that the vote of this large number of patent practitioners fairly indicates the desirability or undesirability of the proposed legislation.

Underwood bill, H. R. 10152 (replaced March 31, 1932, by H. R. 11018), amending section 4895, Revised Statutes, by permitting the assignee of the entire interest in an invention to file divisional and reissue applications. The association has approved this bill by a vote of 289 to 59.

Sirovich bill, H. R. 10153 (replaced March 31, 1932, by H. R. 11016), amending section 4884, Revised Statutes, by limiting the term of a patent to 20 years from the filing date of the application; giving the commissioner power to extend the life of the patent not to exceed 2 years to compensate for delays in the Patent Office, and providing that in no case shall the term of any patent be more than 17 years. The association has disapproved this bill by a vote of 255 to 75.

Rich bill, H. R. 10154 (replaced March 31, 1932, by H. R. 11017), amending section 4888, Revised Statutes, by permitting single signature to patent application and validating joint patent for sole invention. The association approves this bill by a vote of 308 to 41.

Goodwin bill, H. R. 10155 (replaced April 4, 1932, by Patterson bill, H. R. 11087), abolishing section 4897 of the Revised Statutes, which provides for renewals of "forfeited" applications, and substituting other provisions as an addition to section 4885, Revised Statutes. The Goodwin bill above is disapproved by the association by a vote of 281 to 45.

Kelly bill, H. R. 10156 (replaced March 31, 1932, by H. R. 11019), amending section 4886, Revised Statutes, so as to limit proof of invention or discovery to two years prior to filing application. The association disapproved this bill by a vote of 217 to 104.

Dies bill, H. R. 10157, amending sections 4894 and 4903 of the Revised Statutes, providing for summary action on applications pending three years. The association disapproved this bill by a vote of 189 to 138.

The foregoing are all of the bills on which hearings were given.

The following bills, which, we understand, were introduced for the first time since the hearings, are being sent to our members for a referendum vote:

Gavagan bill, H. R. 10924, amending section 4916, revised statutes, so that reissued patent shall have only the effect of the original against intervening acts begun in good faith.

Swank bill, H. R. 10010, amending section 4917 revised statutes, limiting disclaimers to complete numbered claims.

We trust you will incorporate this letter in the record of the hearings on the bills first mentioned.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT WATSON.

Chairman Committee on Laws and Rules.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. I think when you send out this referendum vote you get the first impression accurately in the reply vote. That is, the impression without a prolonged discussion or prolonged consideration. You have really the first impression of the bar. Then these other recommendations such as Mr. Brown and Mr. Neave talked about are matters for more thorough consideration by individuals and they have at once the virtue and the vice that they may represent the opinions of the people of stronger opinions than others.

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps that is in conformity with what I learned when I assumed the chairmanship of this committee. I was very anxious to have a bill put in to appoint a court of appeals which would be the final arbiter of appeals in patent matters from the patent department, but I found objections to a court of appeals came from the patent lawyers because I wanted to have the court of appeals composed mainly of patent attorneys, and the greatest opposition came from patent attorneys who did not want to have patent attorneys as judges of the court, and it is a good thing that you have on your Patents Committee here men who can listen to both sides so that we can bring out a bill that we think is to the best interests of the Republic.

Mr. WATSON. When our vote is complete I will be glad to send it to you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your cooperation with this committee throughout its hearing.

STATEMENT OF JO BAILEY BROWN

Mr. BROWN. It does look a very significant thing that the American Bar Association recommends this and the American Patent Law Association oppose it. The chairman has very pertinently asked the question. Mr. Davis has partly answered it, but that is not the whole answer. Those things have been discussed very fully. That proposition that has been brought here by the American Bar Association has been before the association at least one year, and some of them at least several years. Committees have worked on them for days. I know, because I have been on the committees. Very distinguished men in our profession have given days to work on these things and have given very careful consideration to this. Our program was sent out printed with a brier explaining why those things were proposed and the replies gone over 30 days before the meeting, and then as many as 60 or 70 men from all over the country debated them for several days. Now, the American Patent Law Association system is to print the bill, dump it in somebody's lap with a post card, and say mark do you like it or not. I know of my own personal knowledge that a great many of these votes come back from people who have not read the bill. I know of a great many measures where people who voted on them vote for them because they say we are opposed to any change in the patent law system or tinkering with the patent laws.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think there is any lawyer from the Patent Law Association that would discredit their association by voting on a proposition without even reading it?

Mr. BROWN. Out of the two or three hundred members not over 50 men have carefully considered the bill in the background of the brief or its importance. They have not had the opportunity. If you have a bill handed to you on your desk, you are working and busy and you can not get the background and when it is debated on the floor you do not know more about it. You have some assurance from some one on the floor and you glance at it and vote yes or no. You do not know what committee has worked on it for days discussing it; you do not know as much about it as those men. Personally, I think this of the referendum vote. I am a member of the American Patent Law Association. I was a former vice president of it; I was on the laws and rules committee, and I have been in it so that I can speak as an insider. I think the referendum taken by the association is frequently very misleading.

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon the committee adjourned to meet again at 10 o'clock a. m., Thursday, March 31, 1932.)