ft 2-3 
 
 # 
 
Conservation Resources 
 
123 
 
 L S5 
 
 THE 
 
 United States Patent System 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES SHEPARD. 
 
 Read before the New Britain Scientific Association, 
 
 DKCKNIBE^R 8, 1890. 
 
 Reprinted from the April number of the NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINE. ^•2'^^^// ' 
 
 :m 
 
 f 
 
 cN^ 
 
 . \ t:)T^d 
 
 POTTER &. POTTER, PUBS. 
 
 BOSTON. MASS. 
 1S91. 
 
w 
 
 T^S 
 
 .^^ 
 
 ss- 
 
 Copyrighted by James Shepard, 1890. 
 
THE 
 
 New England Magazine. 
 
 New Series. 
 
 APRIL, 1 89 1 
 
 Vol. IV. No. 2. 
 
 THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM. 
 
 By James Shepard. 
 
 VERY person has an 
 obvious right to the 
 products of his own 
 mind, and conse- 
 quently a right to his 
 inventions. No one 
 could know of the ex- 
 istence of an inven- 
 tion, until after the 
 inventor voluntary revealed it, either by 
 disclosing it to others or putting it into 
 some tangible form. But in the absence 
 of special laws, how can the inventor 
 protect himself in this right? If he 
 attempts to use his invention for himself 
 only, he will in doing this disclose it to 
 others ; and while others cannot stop 
 him from using it, he has no power to 
 stop them. Some few inventions may be 
 practised in secret, but most inventions, 
 if used at all, leave some tangible evidence, 
 which, in spite of all the safeguards that 
 may be devised, are liable sooner or later 
 to be discovered or betrayed. Under 
 such circumstances there would be poor 
 encouragement to invent, and those who 
 do invent must try to keep their inven- 
 tions with profound secrecy. Some have 
 succeeded in so doing and let valuable 
 inventions die with' themselves. Without 
 protection, those who conceive of inven- 
 tions will not work them out, and thus 
 the public is deprived of the advantages. 
 Such was the state of affairs relating to 
 inventions when this country was first 
 
 settled, but even then men were keen 
 enough to see that the public at large would 
 be greatly benefited by taking steps to en- 
 courage and stimulate inventions. In 
 fact, nearly every nation in the world has 
 given some encouragement and provided 
 some protection fpr inventions. Even 
 the North American Indians, it is said, 
 honored the maker of arrow-heads ; they 
 always gave him a hearty welcome and at 
 all times gave him free passage through 
 the country, as he carried his stone im- 
 plements about for sale or exchange. 
 With a view to encourage invention, many 
 of our states in the colonial days, by 
 special acts, from time to time, granted 
 patents to various inventors. The late 
 Senator .Wadleigh of New Hampshire is 
 authority for the statement that it is gen- 
 erally believed that- the first patent ever 
 issued to an inventor in America was 
 granted in 1646, by the General Court of 
 the colony of Massachusetts Bay, to 
 Joseph Jencks, for an improvement in 
 scythes. The improvement changed the 
 short, thick, straight English scythe into 
 the longer, thinner, curved implement 
 with stiffened back, substantially the same 
 as that in use at the present day. 
 
 In 1652, the General Court of Massa- 
 chusetts allowed John Clark ten shillings 
 for three years from every family who 
 should use his invention for sawing wood 
 and warming houses at little cost. After 
 a trial for this period he was granted the 
 
 \'^^* 
 •.^ 
 
140 
 
 THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM. 
 
 United States Patent Office, Washington, D. C. 
 
 same privilege during his life. This is 
 the earliest record I have found of a 
 royalty or license fee. 
 
 In the printed statutes of Connecticut, 
 in 1672: 
 
 " It is ordered that there shall be no monopolies 
 granted or allowed amongst us, but of such new 
 inventions as shall be judged profitable to the 
 country and for such time as the general court 
 shall judge meet." 
 
 The earliest Connecticut patent found 
 
 on record was granted in October, 171 7, 
 
 to Edward Hinman of Stratford, for the 
 
 exclusive right and liberty of making 
 
 molasses from the stalks of Indian corn, 
 
 in Fairfield County, for ten years, which 
 
 grant ended with the words : 
 
 " Always provided the said Hinman make as 
 good molasses, and make it as cheap, as comes 
 from the West Indies." 
 
 Like many of these colonial patents, 
 this grant covered the practice of the art 
 by any and all processes, without being 
 restricted to the particular process prac- 
 tised by the petitioner. 
 
 Such patents were granted for the right 
 to make steel, to make salt, to make 
 glass, to utilize the tide for mills, and for 
 the practice of many other arts. Iron 
 and silk were the subjects of much legis- 
 lation. An application for a patent for 
 the exclusive use of the steam-engine for 
 factory purposes was refused in 1786. 
 
 Other patents were more limited ; for 
 example, a patent to the inventor of a 
 clock ^nhat winds itself up by the help 
 of the air, and will continue to do so 
 without aid or assistance until the com- 
 ponent parts thereof are destroyed by 
 friction," was limited to the privilege of 
 making and vending said kinds of clocks. 
 Instead of an exclusive right to make 
 and sell, bounties or premiums were 
 sometimes offered. Sometimes the peti- 
 ^tioner was allowed to raise money by 
 lottery ; and in one instance an unfor- 
 tunate inventor who had been convicted 
 of altering bills of public credit was re- 
 stored to his forfeited liberties for having 
 invented " a method of grinding and pol- 
 ishing crystals and other stones of great 
 value, all of the growth of this colony." ^ 
 
 The constitution of the United States 
 gives Congress the power '' to promote 
 the progress of science and useful arts, 
 by securing for limited times to authors 
 and inventors the exclusive right to their 
 respective writings and discoveries." 
 Our present system has its foundation in 
 this single clause of the constitution. 
 Says Senator Piatt in his speech upon the 
 reorganization of the Patent Office : 
 
 1 Those who may be interested in a further study of the 
 Colonial patents of Connecticut will find some fifty pages 
 relating thereto in the Patent Office Reports for the year 
 1850, page 421. 
 
THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM. 
 
 141 
 
 " When the fathers wrote that clause of the 
 constitution of the United States, they buildecl 
 better than they knew. They knew, indeed, that 
 the prosperity of every nation must depend largely 
 upon the progress of the useful arts; they knew 
 that if this country was to attain the glory and 
 the power which they hoped for it, it must be 
 along the road of invention; but they could not, 
 the wildest dreamer, the statesman with the most 
 vivid imagination, could never have dreamed, 
 could never have imagined, the blessing, the bene- 
 ficial results, which would flow and have flowed 
 from the exercise of the power thus granted to 
 Congress." 
 
 Thomas Jefferson is said to have been 
 the first to take steps to have Congress 
 exercise the power thus granted, and at 
 his instigation, and under his influence, 
 the patent act of April lo, 1790, was 
 passed, and the first American patent 
 <?< twisystem was founded. The President, the 
 Secretary of State, and the Attorney-Gen- 
 eral were the persons to examine appli- 
 ations under this act ; and they performed 
 their duties with great care and rigidity, 
 refusing many applications. The first 
 patent granted under this act, the same 
 being the first United States patent, was 
 dated July i, 1790, and was issued to 
 Samuel Hopkins of Vermont, for making 
 pot and pearl ashes. 
 
 On December 15, 1836, the building 
 occupied by the Patent Office was burned, 
 leaving no records of early patents in 
 existence, other than a mere list. In the 
 early reports, the full residence of the 
 patentees was not given. Only three 
 patents were issued during the entire 
 year of 1790; thirty-three were issued 
 in 1 79 1, eleven in 1792, and prior to 
 / February 24, 1793, twenty more, making 
 Lm all sixty-seven patents issued under 
 our first patent law. A new law was 
 passed in 1793, which practically did 
 away with all examination as to merits 
 and novelty, and every one who paid the 
 necessary fees received a patent. Under 
 the act of 1790, the total of the gov- 
 .'=' ernment fees on a patent containing a 
 thousand words was only $4.70. Under 
 the act of 1793, the fee was raised to 
 $30.00 in all cases. 11,348 patents were 
 granted under this act, some of which 
 were the most important inventions of 
 the age. The first United States patent 
 ever issued to a citizen of Connecticut 
 was granted January 15, 1796, to Jared 
 
 Byington, for an improvement in making 
 nails. Daniel Byington of Wolcott, was 
 a noted mechanic and a skilled inventor. 
 He had a son Jared, who, judging from 
 the record of his baptism, was about . 
 thirty years of age at the date of this 
 patent. There is a strong probability 
 that this Jared is the patentee in ques- 
 tion and that he had removed from Wol- 
 cott prior to that time. Where he re- 
 sided I have been unable to learn. I 
 cannot find that the manufacture of nails 
 was carried on anywhere in Connecticut 
 at that early day, except at the forge of 
 the village blacksmith, and in the work- 
 room at Newgate prison, where a large 
 number of men were so employed. In 
 May, 1776, an act for the encouragement 
 of manufacturing nails, by paying a bounty 
 per pound upon all made, passed one 
 branch of the General Court of Con- 
 necticut, but was killed in the upper 
 house. As early as 1791, a United States 
 patent was granted for a machine for 
 making nails. 
 
 The law of 1793 provided for an inter- 
 ference trial, to determine which of two 
 or more applicants was the first inventor ; 
 the first interference under this act was in 
 connection with " a machine to work in a 
 current of water," and terminated by the 
 granting of a patent to John Clark, 
 December 31, 1793. The present sys'^^ 
 tem of the examination of applications; 
 for patents, and substantially the present.; 
 law, was passed July 4, 1836. The\ 
 present system of numbering patents | 
 began with No. i, for the first patent' 
 issued in July, 1836, after the reorganiza-! 
 tion of the Patent Office under this act, 
 and continuing consecutively to the 
 present time (December 2, 1890), has 
 reached 442,090. Adding this number 
 to the 11,405 issued prior to 1836, we 
 have 453,505 as the total number of 
 United States patents ever issued. This 
 does not include re-issues, designs, trade- 
 marks, and labels, each of which have 
 their own numbers. In 1836, the Com- 
 missioner of Patents, a chief clerk, a 
 machinist, and a messenger, constituted 
 the entire force of the Patent Office ; in 
 all, eight persons. The present force of 
 the Patent Office aggregates 590 persons, 
 and even this number of employees is in- 
 
142 
 
 THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM. 
 
 sufficient to discharge the work of the 
 office promptly. 
 
 In the last half of the year 1836, only 
 ninety-seven- patents were granted. In 
 , the first half of the year 1890, 10,713 
 patents were issued, which is over in 
 times as many as in the same time in 
 1836. During the year ending July i, 
 1890; 20,682 patents were issued, which 
 is more by several hundreds than the en- 
 tire issue of patents for a period of sixty- 
 one years after the establishment of the 
 Patent Office. ^ 
 
 The question of most general interest 
 under the present law is that of patent- 
 ability. What is patentable? It is dif- 
 ficult to give a definite answer to the 
 question, or to give a rule, standard, or 
 unerring test, by which one can always 
 tell surely whether a certain device is 
 patentable. Able lawyers, judges, and 
 experts, who have spent a lifetime in 
 studying patent law and patents, come to 
 different conclusions as to the patentability 
 of certain devices. There are cases where 
 we can surely say a device is patentable 
 if new, or that it is not patentable ; but 
 other cases come so near the border line 
 between that which is patentable and not 
 patentable, that two persons of great skill 
 and experience in patent matters may 
 honestly entertain opposite opinions. It 
 is no easy task to say what is patentable. 
 Even the issue of a patent does not con- 
 clusively prove that the subject matter 
 patented is patentable. The only section 
 of the law which relates to patentability 
 is as follows : 
 
 " Section 4886. Any person who has invented 
 or discovered any ne.w and useful art, machine, 
 manufacture or composition of matter, or any new 
 and useful improvement thereof, not known or 
 used by others in this country, and not patented 
 or described in any printed publication in this or 
 any foreign country, before his invention or dis- 
 covery thereof, and not in public use or on sale 
 for more than two years prior to his application, 
 unless the same is proved to have been aban- 
 doned, may, upon payment of the fees required 
 by law and other due proceedings had, obtain a 
 patent therefor." 
 
 The reader might be referred to this 
 section of the law for an answer to the 
 question, for it is, in connection with the 
 
 1 For a general history of the Patent Office from 1790 up 
 to the date of the fire in September, 1877, the reader is re- 
 ferred to the O. G. of October 9, 1877, Vol. 12, page 589. 
 
 explanations thereof as given by the 
 courts, all the answer that there is. Let 
 attention be directed in detail to the 
 language of this section. As to who may 
 obtain a patent, the language is the 
 broadest that can be framed. It is as 
 broad as the "every one" in the Scrip- 
 tural invitation to them that thirst. The 
 conditions of the act being fulfilled, a 
 patent may be obtained by " any per- 
 son " without qualification ; male or female, 
 old or young, black, white or red, citizen 
 or alien, a resident of this or any country, 
 — all these are included, and none are ex- 
 cluded. If two or more persons jointly 
 fulfil the conditions of this section, they 
 are entitled to receive a joint patent, 
 because each applicant comes under the 
 term "■ any person who," with others, has 
 fulfilled these conditions. 
 
 The first requisite of patentability under 
 this section. is that one shall have ''in- 
 vented or discovered" something, then 
 comes the question, What is it to invent 
 or discover? Invention is making known 
 that which was not known before ; at 
 least, not known to the inventor. It must 
 originate with him ; otherwise, it is not in- 
 vention. He may have spent years of 
 study and thought before he could so 
 comprehend the matter as to make it 
 known, or he may have discovered it by 
 accident or in the twinkling of the eye. 
 In either case it is invention or discovery. 
 If a thing is actually discovered without 
 thought or study, it might be said that 
 the discoverer did not actually invent it ; 
 but even then it is probable that if another 
 person had desired to know^ and to make 
 known, the same thing, he might have 
 first studied over it for years ; and there- 
 fore to make an unknown thing known is 
 something that might have required the 
 exercise of invention, and if so that thing 
 has been invented or discovered within 
 the meaning of this law. Invention and 
 discovery are therefore considered syn- 
 onymous. There may be a slight distinc- 
 tion between them, but it is immaterial. 
 
 The second requisite of patentability, 
 is that the thing invented shall be " new 
 and useful." A thing is new if not before 
 known. It must at least be new with the 
 inventor. "New and useful," when con- 
 sidered by itself, imphes that it must be 
 
THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM. 
 
 143 
 
 new to all the world, but what the statute 
 means by new is explained further on in 
 connection with special requirements as 
 to novelty, and therefore need not be 
 considered here. A thing to be patent- 
 able must be useful, in the sense that it is 
 capable of a useful purpose. It may be 
 no better than that which existed before ; 
 if it is useful as opposed to harmful, the 
 law is satisfied. Utihty has a bearing on 
 the question of novelty and invention. 
 A change, to be novel, must be a sub- 
 stantial and material one, — a change that 
 produces some useful result or function. 
 If a material advantage is derived from a 
 certain change, the presumption is that 
 others would have made that change before 
 and reaped that advantage, were it not 
 for the fact that mvention was required to 
 make the thing known, and therefore we 
 call the thing new. This presumption of 
 invention and novelty cannot arise from 
 the production of a change by which no 
 advantage can be reaped. 
 
 The third requisite of patentability re- 
 lates to the subject matter invented. 
 The subject may be any ''art, machine, 
 manufacture or composition of matter." 
 The term art relates to the manner of 
 doing certain acts, the process or mode 
 by which anything is made. A process 
 may be worked out by machinery, but the 
 mere operation of a machine is not a true 
 art, process, or method. A machine is a 
 device for performing work of some kind, 
 and it generally consists of moving parts. 
 A "manufacture " is any finished article, 
 or one so nearly finished as to be the 
 subject of sale for some useful purpose. 
 This term is confined to the article itself, 
 with reference to some utility, and does 
 not apply to the mere shape or ornamenta- 
 tion of an article which has no useful 
 function. Shape, without function, is a 
 proper subject for a design patent, and is 
 therefore excluded from protection under 
 this section of the statute. A " composi- 
 tion of matter " is a medical or chemical 
 compound, or any compound of two or 
 more ingredients. Anything to be patent- 
 able must come under one or the other 
 of these four heads or classes, — art, 
 machine, manufacture, or composition of 
 matter ; or else it must be some new 
 and useful improvement thereof. The 
 
 phrase ''improvement" in this connec- 
 tion only serves to make it clear that one 
 may receive a patent for all that he in- 
 vents ; whether it be a thing of a kind 
 never known before, a thing which is new 
 from beginning to end, or merely a new 
 and useful change of, or addition to, 
 something which was before known. The 
 subject matter of every patent now issued 
 is called an " improvement " in the grant, 
 but the words as thus used do not neces- 
 sarily imply that the invention is an im- 
 provement upon some prior invention of 
 the same class. 
 
 The fourth requisite of patentability is 
 that the subject matter invented shall not, 
 before the applicant's invention, have 
 been " known or used by others in this 
 country." This is the first special pro- 
 vision as to novelty. Known and used, 
 in this connection, are practically syn- 
 onymous. Anything which is not com- 
 pleted so as to be capable of use cannot 
 fairly be said to be known. If it has not 
 been tried or used, it may result only in 
 failure. When, however, a thing has been 
 used, and has been found to answer the 
 purpose for which it was made, the thing 
 is then known to all who have used it or 
 seen it used, but it cannot be practically 
 known until it has been used. It is im- 
 material how small a number of persons 
 may have the knowledge of prior use ; if 
 known to only a single person other than 
 the inventor, and if no special pains are 
 taken to prevent others from knowing the 
 same, it is known to the world in the eye 
 of the law. This prior knowledge or use, 
 in order to defeat *a patent, the statute 
 says must be " in this country," and 
 therefore it is immaterial what has been 
 known and used abroad, provided the 
 home inventor did not know of that 
 foreign use and was thus a real inventor. 
 
 The fifth requisite of patentability is 
 that the subject matter invented shall not 
 have been " patented or described in any 
 printed publication in this or any foreign 
 country, before his invention or discovery 
 thereof." This is the second and last 
 special provision as to novelty. It will 
 be noticed that this requisite includes 
 foreign countries, so that a prior patent or 
 printed publication in any country is a 
 bar to a patent. It is iK)t enough, how- 
 
144 
 
 THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM. 
 
 ever, that a thing may be shown in the 
 drawing of a prior patent, or described in 
 the specification, in order to be patented. 
 It is patented only when it is either in 
 whole or in' part the subject matter that is 
 set forth in a patent as the invention of 
 the patentee. If, however, such patent is 
 printed, it becomes a printed publication, 
 and then matter which is described 
 therein is a bar to a patent. In order to 
 defeat a patent or application by a prior 
 printed publication, the subject matter of 
 that patent must be described, not merely 
 shown in such prior publication ; but such 
 description may refer to a drawing, and 
 if the two taken together show the sub- 
 ject matter of a patent or application, the 
 description will be considered sufficient 
 to defeat it. There must, however, be a 
 description of some kind in a printed 
 publication, in order to make said pub- 
 lication a bar to a patent. 
 
 The sixth requisite of patentability is 
 that the subject matter shall not have 
 been in " public use or on sale for more 
 than two years prior to this application." 
 If a thing is used, as things of its class 
 are ordinarily used, and without special 
 concealment, it is in public use. A mere 
 test of a thing is not public use ; but if, 
 after such use as is necessary to test its 
 working, the use is continued, it is public 
 use. It is immaterial how limited the 
 use may be, or how small a portion of the 
 public may actually know of such use. 
 A thing is on sale when it is offered for 
 sale, no matter whether it is actually sold 
 or not.» We have already referred to 
 prior use, but the limit in that case was 
 only that such use must not be before the 
 applicant's invention, and had no refer- 
 ence to the application, or to any use 
 that was subsequent to the invention. 
 An applicant may have invented a device 
 ten or twenty years prior to his applica- 
 tion, so far as prior use is concerned ; 
 but if the applicant or any one else, 
 either with or without the applicant's 
 knowledge or consent, uses a device for 
 more than two years before application 
 for a patent, a valid patent cannot be 
 obtained therefor. A use prior to the 
 applicant's invention is expressly limited 
 to this country, and therefore the two 
 years' public use and sale, which may be 
 
 subsequent to the invention, is also un- 
 derstood to relate only to this country. 
 
 The seventh requisite of patentabihty 
 is that the invention is not " proved to 
 have been abandoned." Abandonment 
 can be proved only by the declarations 
 or acts of the inventor, and the proof 
 must be clear. A man can give his m- 
 vention away if he pleases, but unless he 
 expressly declares, either by words or 
 acts, that he has given it up, or that he 
 never intends to do anything more with 
 it, or words to that effect, it is a hard 
 matter to prove abandonment. 
 
 Lastly, this section provides for the 
 payment of fees and other matters of 
 form, which can be easily complied with 
 and need not be here discussed. 
 
 We have now considered the whole 
 law of patentability ; and if the reader 
 do not understand it he need not be 
 discouraged. Probably, language cannot 
 be framed to affirmatively state what may 
 be patentable. Volumes have been writ- 
 ten on the subject, but they are largely 
 devoted to telling what is not patentable 
 instead of what is. In fact, the law it- 
 self, as we have already seen, is largely 
 made up of negative conditions. In 
 giving rules even to what is not patent- 
 able, the matter is further complicated 
 by certain exceptions to those rules. 
 One great difficulty in regard to this 
 question is want of uniformity in the 
 matter to be considered. Unless nearly 
 the exact thing is found to be old, every 
 case is practically a new one and differ- 
 ent in some respects from any other, and 
 to judge it correctly and properly apply 
 to it the rules of law, requires the nicest 
 discrimination and the most careful judg- 
 ment. 
 
 In order to obtain a patent, the appli- 
 cant must make application therefor in 
 writing to the Commissioner of Patents. 
 This writing is called the petition. He 
 must also file a written description. This 
 description is called the specification. 
 It must be so full and clear as to enable 
 one skilled in the art or science to which 
 it appertains to make, construct, com- 
 pound and use the same. The reason 
 for this requirement is twofold : first, 
 to know how to construe the patent in 
 case of alleged infringement ; and second, 
 
THE UNITED STATES FA TEXT SYSTEM. 
 
 \U 
 
 that the pubHc may have the benefit of 
 the invention after the patent has expired. 
 In fact, a patent is a contract between 
 the inventor and the government, the 
 latter giving the inventor, for a Hmited 
 time, the exclusive right to make, to use, 
 and to sell his invention, upon the condi- 
 tion that the inventor gives that same 
 right to the public at the expiration of 
 his patent. In order to make sure that 
 the public shall have this right, the law 
 requires this full and complete disclosure 
 of the invention by a written specifica- 
 tion, before the patent can be issued. 
 The law also requires that the specifica- 
 tion shall particularly point out and dis- 
 tinctly claim the part, improvement, or 
 combination which the applicant claims 
 as his invention. The clause or clauses 
 which thus point out the invention are 
 called the claims. 
 
 When the nature of the case admits of 
 illustration by drawings, the applicant is 
 required to furnish one drawing on card- 
 board, ten by fifteen inches in size, while 
 the Patent Office furnishes a copy thereof 
 to be attached to the patent. The draw- 
 ings are copied by the photolithographic 
 process, and they must, therefore, be 
 made in exact accordance with a long 
 list of requirements. In fact, no one but 
 an experienced artist can make a drawing 
 that comes up to the high standard now 
 required by the Office. 
 
 The applicant is also required to make 
 oath or affirmation as to his residence, 
 what country he is a citizen of; that he 
 verily believes himself to be the original, 
 first, and sole inventor of the matter 
 claimed in the specification, or if there be 
 more than one applicant, that they are 
 joint inventors ; that it has not been 
 patented to his knowledge in any country, 
 or in no country except those named m 
 the oath ; that it has not been in public 
 use or on sale in the United States for 
 more than two years prior- to his applica- 
 tion ; and that he does not know, and 
 does not believe, that it was ever known 
 or used prior to his invention. 
 
 The applicant shall also furnish a model, 
 "if required by the Commissioner," but 
 the Commissioner requires models only in 
 very few instances. This dispensing with 
 models has been a great saving to in- 
 
 ventors, because they can have their 
 applications prepared from full-sized ma- 
 chines or articles. It has also worked 
 much injury to inventors, as they have had 
 applications prepared from rough sketches 
 before making any machine or article, 
 and oftentimes when they had only crude 
 ideas of what they had invented. The 
 result has been many worthless patents. 
 Oftentimes when the patentee comes to 
 embody the invention in a machine or 
 article, he finds, to his sorrow, that he 
 has so changed the construction that 
 another patent must be taken out to cover 
 the improved device. Sometimes the 
 change is so great that not a single feature 
 remains that is covered by the patent. 
 And worse than all, sometimes the change 
 is not quite so sweeping and the com- 
 pleted thing partially resembles the 
 patent, but not closely enough to be 
 clearlv within the claims thereof ; while, at 
 the same time, the patent discloses just 
 enough to prevent getting adequate pro- 
 tection by a new patent. Such a patent 
 is positively worse than no patent at all, 
 but it is no more than what may be ex- 
 pected in trying to patent a thing which 
 never existed except on paper. 
 
 The application being prepared, when 
 it is sent to Washington, the financial clerk 
 will see that the first Government fee 
 of fifteen dollars is paid, and the applica- 
 tion clerk will see that all the formalities 
 as to signatures and the oath have been 
 complied with. The draughtsman will 
 examine the drawing, to see if it is made 
 in conformity with the rules, and if so, he 
 will stamp it " O. K." A receipt is then 
 forwarded to the applicant, stating that 
 the papers have been duly filed and 
 that " your application for a patent will 
 be taken up for examination in its order." 
 The last three words are very significant, 
 and mean that the case will be reached 
 for examination perhaps inside of a month, 
 perhaps, in five or six months, according to 
 which one of the six hundred and eighty- 
 eight classes, or the four thousand and 
 over sub-classes, the invention may belong 
 to. The examination of these applica- 
 tions is divided among thirty principal 
 examiners, stationed in as many different 
 rooms ; the principal examiner being 
 chief of the room and responsible for the 
 
146 
 
 THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM. 
 
 work of his assistants. They consist of a 
 first, second, third, and fourth assistant 
 examiner and several clerks. 
 
 The first step in the examination of an 
 appUcation is to determine whether it is 
 in all respects in proper form, and if so, 
 the case will be examined on its merits. 
 In matters of form, some examiners are 
 very exacting and almost whimsical ; while 
 others^ pay but little attention to form, and 
 turn their whole attention to matters of 
 substance. As a general rule, those who 
 are not too exacting in matters of form 
 are the best examiners. In examining a 
 case upon its merits, the drawings of all 
 prior patents in the class to which the 
 invention belongs, and oftentimes the 
 patents in other classes, when there is a 
 probability that there may be any analogy, 
 are examined. Not only prior United 
 States patents, but the prior patents of 
 all countries, and also the printed publi- 
 cations in the Office Library are ex- 
 amined. While the examinations are 
 largely made by the aid of drawings, the 
 accompanying descriptions are read 
 whenever there is any obscurity in the 
 drawing, or when there is a probability 
 that said description may reveal some- 
 thing not illustrated by the drawing. By 
 practice and experience, the examiners 
 become very expert in reading drawings, 
 and can detect almost at a glance any- 
 thing that has an analogy to the case which 
 they are considering. These examinations 
 are generally very thorough, and it is 
 extremely seldom that a prior patent or 
 publication is overlooked. Such cases do 
 sometimes occur, but not so often as we 
 might expect, when we consider the diffi- 
 cult task of making such an examination 
 in the limited time at the command of 
 the examiners. The result of the exami- 
 nation is communicated to the applicant 
 or his attorney, and in the great majority 
 of cases consists of a rejection or partial 
 rejection of the application, with the 
 reason therefor and such information and 
 references as may be useful to the applicant 
 in the further prosecution of his case. 
 The applicant then has a right to another 
 examination without change in his appli- 
 cation, or he may change the same in 
 such manner as to remove the objections. 
 The examination is made with more par- 
 
 ticular reference to what the applicant 
 claims than it is to what he shows. Thus 
 the examiner may oftentimes reject an 
 application upon reference to a patent, 
 the substance of which the examiner con- 
 siders to be entirely different from the 
 applicant's invention, because the exam- 
 iner considers the claim to be so worded 
 that it may be said to describe the device 
 shown in the prior patent as well as it 
 does the applicant's invention. An ob- 
 jection by reason of such a reference is 
 overcome by changing the wording of the 
 applicant's claim, so that it particularly 
 points out those features that are different 
 from those shown in the patent cited. 
 Oftentimes the change of one or two 
 words in a claim will cause the examiner 
 to allow it, when he otherwise would not. 
 In fact, the science of soliciting patents 
 consists largely in perceiving how little 
 change may be sufficient to overcome an 
 objection. Great skill is required to so 
 word a claim that it shall clearly identify 
 the invention and, separate it from all 
 prior ones, and at the same time make 
 the claim as broad as the invention. ' One 
 of the most common errors of patent 
 solicitors and inventors, in amending a 
 claim to avoid an objection, is to impose 
 on the claim more limitations and restric- 
 tions than are necessary to overcome the 
 objection. 
 
 This is a good place, perhaps, to cor- 
 rect a common error. Many suppose 
 that the grant of a patent is proof that 
 the subject matter does not infringe upon 
 any prior patent, or, in other words, that 
 obtaining a patent gives one a right to 
 manufacture the patented article without 
 being accountable to any prior patent. 
 This is not the case. The office makes 
 jio examination whatever for the purpose 
 of ascertaining whether the device which 
 an applicant shows and describes in- 
 fringes on any other patent or not. In fact, 
 this is none of its business. In making 
 the examination, the examiners do not 
 even read the claim of a prior patent, 
 unless it is for the purpose of a better 
 understanding of what is shown and 
 described in said patent. The only claim 
 which concerns the Patent Office is the 
 claim of the applicant, and the examina- 
 tion is made to see if the applicant 
 
THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM. 
 
 147 
 
 claims matter which is made the subject 
 of any prior patent, or which is described 
 in any printed publication. If an appli- 
 cant claims such matter, his claim must 
 be rejected, because it is thereby barred 
 from a patent under the clause relating 
 to patentability, which I have before 
 considered. I have already alluded to 
 the difficulty ot deciding the question 
 of patentability, and this is a matter 
 which the examiner has to decide. He 
 must consider it in all its bearings, not 
 only with reference to novelty, but, sup- 
 posing some novelty is shown, he must 
 then decide whether that novelty is such 
 as results from invention, or whether it is 
 merely the expected skill of a mechanic. 
 One of the most difficult questions in 
 deciding patentability is that of distin- 
 guishing between mechanical skill and 
 invention. A thing which is better than 
 another and is also new only by reason 
 of mechanical skill is not patentable, 
 because that which results from mechan- 
 ical skill alone is neither invention nor 
 discovery. 
 
 In 1836, Senator Ruggles, as chairman 
 of the Committee on Patents, gave his 
 view of the qualifications of a good 
 examiner as follows : 
 
 " It is his business to make himself fully ac- 
 quainted with the principles of the invention for 
 which a patent is sought, and to make a thorough 
 investigation of all that has been before known 
 or invented, either in Europe or America, on the; 
 particular subject presented for his examination] 
 He must ascertain how far the invention inter- 
 feres in any of its parts with previous inventions 
 or things previously in use. He must point out 
 and describe the extent of such collision and in- 
 terference, that the applicant may have the bene- 
 fit of the information in so shaping or restricting 
 his claim of originality as not to trespass upon 
 the rights of others. . . . An efficient and just 
 discharge of the duties, it is obvious, requires 
 extensive scientific attainments, and a general 
 knowledge of the arts, manufactures, and the 
 mechanism used in every branch of business in 
 which improvements are sought to be patented, 
 and of the principles embraced in the ten thou- 
 sand inventions patented in the United States, and 
 of the thirty thousand patented in Europe. He 
 must moreover possess a familiar knowledge of 
 the statute and common law on the subject, and 
 the judicial decisions both in England and our 
 own country, in patent cases." 
 
 The same qualifications of an exam- 
 iner are required to-day ; but instead of 
 having to examine only ten thousand in- 
 
 ventions patented in the United States, 
 he has to examine nearly four hundred 
 and fifty thousand such patents, and also 
 a very much larger number of foreign 
 patents than he did in 1836. Commis- 
 sioner Foote said, in 1868 : 
 
 " Questions as to the patentability of inventions 
 become more difficult with the increase in the 
 number of previous devices. An examiner must 
 familiarize himself with all the inventions that 
 have been made in his class, not only in this 
 country, but in Europe. Their great number and 
 complexity have rendered the study of them a 
 profession to be acquired by years of labor. An 
 examiner's decision involves nice questions of 
 law, of science, and of mechanics, The more 
 recondite principles upon which depend the 
 practical success of processes and machinery must 
 be familiar to him. Large amounts of property 
 often depend directly or indirectly upon his ac- 
 tion. The ability and acquirements necessary to 
 the proper discharge of his duties must be of a 
 high order, scarcely less than those we expect in 
 a judge of the higher courts of law." 
 
 And yet before 1848 a primary or 
 principal examiner was paid a salary of 
 ^2500 a year, and from that time to the 
 present his salary has been $2400. The 
 salaries of the assistants is much less. 
 If we ever feel disposed to find fault with 
 the work of these examiners, we should 
 bear in mind that their pay is out of all 
 proportion to the work required of them, 
 and that more work -is forced upon them 
 than they can attend to promptly and 
 efficiently. Notwithstanding all the diffi- 
 culties under which an examiner labors, 
 I may say that the inventors fail to re- 
 ceive ample protection in their patents 
 through the fault of their solicitors at 
 least nine times as often as they do 
 through the fault of the examiner. If 
 the solicitor, in the first place, does not 
 draw a claim so as to properly protect the 
 invention, the examiner has no power to 
 correct the mistake ; no matter how 
 many unnecessary restrictions are in the 
 claim, or how many other claims might 
 properly have been made, the examiner 
 can only reject or allow the claims which 
 are presented to him. On the other 
 hand, if the examiner attempts to impose 
 unnecessary restrictions, or rejects the 
 case improperly, the solicitor has every 
 opportunity to reply and to correct the 
 error of the examiner. If he does not 
 do so, the fault is the solicitor's, rathei 
 than solely the examiner's. There being 
 
THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM. 
 
 thirty principal examiners, and conse- 
 quently thirty different chiefs of the 
 examining corps, we have as many differ- 
 ent rulings. This is necessarily the case, 
 for on questions of nice distinction the 
 honest judgment of different men will 
 differ. In 187 1, Commissioner Leggett 
 said : 
 
 " It is very difficult to establish any rule as to 
 references that shall be plain and of universal 
 application; consequently, there are almost as 
 many different rules of practice in finding refer- 
 ences and making rejections as there are different 
 examiners in the office. Some examiners are very 
 quick to detect resemblances, and will reject 
 almost everything. Others are equally quick at 
 finding differences, and will grant patents on mere 
 shades of variation. Hence, a picket-fence is re- 
 jected on reference to a comb; . . . surgical in- 
 struments for injecting spray into the throat or 
 nasal organs, on reference to a fireman's hose; a 
 rubber packing for fruit-jars, on reference to a 
 pump; a device for lacing ladies' shoes without 
 the use of holes or eyelets, on reference to an old 
 mode of cording bedsteads; an ore-crusher, on 
 reference to a nut-cracker. In each of these 
 cases there will be found a remote resemblance 
 between the device in the application and the 
 reference. In some of them, however, the ex- 
 aminers have displayed more inventive genius in 
 finding the references than the applicants would 
 dare claim for their devices." 
 
 In many cases the examiners' letters 
 read as if the 'examiner were acting under 
 a law for the discouragement of useful in- 
 ventions. The facts of a case are often- 
 times misstated, or couched in unusual 
 language, in order to bring the applicant's 
 device more closely into analogy with the 
 objections. In fact, the examiner's posi- 
 tion is oftentimes so earnestly contested 
 by the attorneys, that unless the examiner 
 is very careful he will find himself acting 
 merely as an opponent to an application, 
 apparently forgetting that he is sitting as 
 a judge to see that justice is done, both 
 to the public and to the inventor. It 
 may be given as a general rule that where 
 an examiner's letter shows the exercise of 
 much thought, study, and invention, in 
 order to throw an obstacle in the way of 
 granting an application, that the subject 
 matter of that application is patentable. 
 The applicant is entitled to two rejections 
 of each claim upon the same state of 
 facts, but oftentimes new references are 
 given, and these entitle the applicant to 
 another action, and in this way sometimes 
 a dozen or more letters are written by the 
 
 examiner before the case is disposed of. 
 The applicant can reply to these letters at 
 any time within two years, and in this 
 way he may, if he elects, keep his ap- 
 plication in the office for many years. 
 
 The greatest hardship that poor in- 
 ventors suffer, under the unjust action of 
 the examiner, is when a case is wrongfully 
 rejected and they cannot well bear the 
 expense of an appeal. Upon the pay- 
 ment of a government fee of ten dollars 
 (and when a solicitor is employed, con- 
 siderably more than that, for conducting 
 the case), the applicant has a right of an 
 appeal to the examiners-in-c"hief. This 
 board of appeal consists of three ex- 
 aminers, whose only business is the con- 
 sideration of appealed cases. A popular 
 error is in styling them the examiner-in- 
 chief, or the chief- examiner, as if the 
 board consisted of only one person instead 
 of three. The same mistake is often 
 miade concerning the title of primary ex- 
 aminer ; he is called the principal ex- 
 aminer of the Patent Office, as if he were 
 one above all others, instead of being 
 one of an equal grade with thirty prin- 
 cipal examiners. 
 
 Upon an adverse action of the ex- 
 aminers-in-chief, the applicant has a right 
 to appeal to the commissioner in person, 
 and from his decision an appeal is had to 
 the Supreme Court of the District of 
 Columbia. 
 
 The practice in design patents is sub- 
 stantially the same • as in mechanical 
 patents ; it differs therefrom mainly in 
 the subject matter to which the patents 
 relate. A design patent is confined to 
 ornamentation or such matters as appeal 
 solely to the eye, while machines and all 
 matters relating to function or mode of 
 operation are expressly excluded under 
 the statute. 
 
 The extension of patents is a thing of 
 the past. An extension gives life to a 
 patent for a new term of years. Prior ,to 
 March, 1861, the term of all patents was 
 fourteen years. The law was then changed, 
 making the life of a patent seventeen 
 years, with a provision that no patent 
 issued after that date should ever be ex- 
 tended, and no patent issued since then 
 has ever been extended. 
 
 A reissue of a patent is often con- 
 
THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM. 
 
 149 
 
 founded with an extension. A reissue 
 has no effect whatever on the term of a 
 patent. It expires at the end of seven- 
 teen years from the date of the original 
 patent. A reissue only changes the de- 
 scription and claims of the original 
 patent. The drawing may be considered 
 as a part of this description. In making 
 these changes the applicant is 'confined to 
 .the subject matter which constituted the 
 invention in the original patent. A re- 
 issue for the purpose of narrowing the 
 claim, or for omitting one of the claims, 
 is proper at any time, but under the re- 
 cent rulings of the courts a reissue for the 
 purpose of broadening the claim or claims 
 must be made very soon after the issue of 
 the original patent, if at all ; otherwise, 
 the reissue will be void. In view of these 
 recent decisions it is of the utmost im- 
 portance that the original patent should 
 be taken out with great care. We have 
 already considered the importance of 
 having the invention reduced by a ma- 
 chine or model to a tangible form before 
 the making of an application. In a.ddi- 
 tion to this, it is of great importance that 
 the inventor shall disclose to his solicitor 
 all facts that he can relative to his inven- 
 tion. He should as nearly as possible tell 
 him exactly how much of the device he 
 knows to be old, and what he supposes 
 to be new. He should point out with 
 minuteness all the advantages which are 
 derived from his invention, or which are 
 supposed to be derived therefrom, and in 
 doing so he should carefully distinguish 
 between the advantages which are peculiar 
 to his invention and those which it has in 
 common with prior devices. He should 
 also inform the solicitor of the various 
 modifications or changes in the invention 
 which have occurred to him or which he 
 can devise. Having done this, it is the 
 duty of the solicitor to put the case into 
 proper form, and upon him lies the respon- 
 sibility of a good patent. If the applicant 
 fails to give the solicitor such information 
 as he possesses, an imperfect patent will 
 be largely the fault of the inventor. The 
 writer has known many patents to be 
 more or less faulty simply through the 
 neglect of the inventor to tell the sohcitor 
 of the real facts in the case, and facts that 
 he well knew. 
 
 Trade-marks and labels are registered 
 in the Patent Office under certain condi- 
 tions, but they are not patents, and for 
 that reason will not be discussed in this 
 paper. 
 
 The amount of the balance in the 
 Treasury of the United States to the 
 credit of the patent fund, in January, 
 1890, was nearly four million dollars. 
 The Patent Office is the only branch of 
 the Government from which any profit is 
 derived, the only branch that pays its 
 own way ; and yet Congress has always 
 pursued a niggardly policy towards this 
 most useful, important, and prosperous of 
 its children. For more than forty years 
 past the annual reports of the Patent 
 Office have contained urgent appeals to 
 Congress for more room, more help, and 
 more money, yet inventors in some 
 classes have often had to wait for from 
 twelve to fifteen months, or more, before 
 their applications could be reached for 
 examination. In the report for the year 
 1847 one of the examiners says: 
 
 "The genius, energy, and patient perseverance 
 of the inventor in the noble work of improve- 
 ment, in those arts which minister to the neces- 
 sities, the conveniences, and the enjoyments of 
 man, have far outstripped the tardy foot of legisla- 
 tion, and have transcended the limits of legisla- 
 tive provisions for their protection." 
 
 In 1884, Hon. O. H. Piatt, one of the 
 warmest, the truest, and most earnest 
 friends of the American mechanic and in- 
 ventor, said in his speech in the United 
 States Senate, after quoting from the re- 
 ports of several Commissioners : 
 
 " The quotations which I have made from 
 former Commissioners and the letter of the present 
 Commissioner are but the echo of every Commis- 
 sioner of Patents, from the commencement of the 
 Office down to the present time. The universal 
 cry has been for more room, for more force, for 
 room and force to enable the Office to keep up 
 with its constantly increasing business. It has 
 been more than a cry, it has been a wail. The 
 Office is shamefully and almost criminally limited 
 and cramped for room. I undertake to say that 
 if there were tenement-houses in the city of 
 Washington crowded as the rooms in the Patent 
 Office are crowded, there would be one universal 
 cry of indignation going up, not only from the 
 press of this city, but the press of the whole 
 country. Yet in the Patent Office it goes on and 
 nobody objects. The space which is allotted to 
 the clerical employees of the Patent Office may be 
 large enough for a (kmgeon, it may be large 
 enough for a tomb, and it may be a little too 
 
150 
 
 THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM. 
 
 large for a grave, but it is not a fit amount of 
 room for a human being to live and do the work 
 of this Government in." 
 
 Yet, notwithstanding all this cry for 
 more room and more force, the Office is 
 still in the same condition, and the report 
 of the present Commissioner echoes the 
 plea of every former Commissioner for 
 more force, and for more funds, in order 
 that tiie inventors of this country may 
 have granted to them such facilities in 
 the Patent Office as those inventors have 
 paid for and do not get. One of the 
 most important inventions in connection 
 with the workings of the Patent Office is 
 that of photohthography. It is, I believe, 
 pot the result of a single invention, but 
 like many other inventions which are of 
 the greatest moment to the country, it 
 came little by little as the aggregate re- 
 sult of many inventions. By its aid the 
 Patent Office is enabled to do with the 
 same force nearly double the work that 
 could formerly have been done. In fact, 
 as we look upon it to-day, it would seem 
 almost impossible for the Office to con- 
 duct its business at all without the aid of 
 photolithography. For example, look at 
 the Official Gazette, which is sent out 
 every Tuesday,/ and contains illustrations 
 and the full claims of every patent issued 
 on that Tuesday, for the current week, 
 the number of which frequently exceeds 
 five hundred. This requires over one 
 hundred and fifty pages. When consid- 
 ered with reference to the amount and 
 character of the labor bestowed upon it, 
 and the promptness with which it is 
 issued, I believe that it is not equalled by 
 any other publication in the world, and 
 yet it is sold at five dollars a year. One 
 can obtain a single copy for any week for 
 ten cents. What a contrast is this to 
 twenty-five years ago. h.t that time the 
 only printed record of patents that was 
 sent from the Patent Office was the much 
 ridiculed Patent Office Reports issued only 
 once a year, and then not until the 
 patents which they illustrated were two 
 or three years old. The illustrations were 
 engravings or woodcuts, closely crowded 
 together in a volume or volumes by them- 
 selves, while the claims were printed in 
 other volumes. The first illustrations 
 appear in the report for 1853, in which a 
 
 part only of the patents were illustrated 
 by white lines on a black ground, the cuts 
 accompanying the text. The reports for 
 1849, '5®> '51? ^i^d '52 contained the 
 claims only, and prior to that time we 
 have nothing but a mere list of patents 
 issued, with reports of the various exam- 
 iners, who sometimes made mention of 
 what they considered the most important 
 inventions of the patents issued during 
 the year. 
 
 Photolithography has wrought numerous 
 other changes *in the practice of the 
 Patent Office. Formerly, the examiners 
 had to make their examinations from a 
 single set of the original drawings, and if 
 more than one examiner wished at the 
 same time to consult the drawings of any 
 particular class, one of them would have 
 to defer his work until the other was 
 "through with them. Now, every examiner 
 has in his own room a photolithographic 
 copy of all such patented drawings as he 
 may often have occasion to examine. 
 Other sets are kept in the draughtsman's 
 room, where attorneys and others may 
 have access to them. The original draw- 
 ings are carefully filed away where they 
 can be examined when necessary, but 
 where they will be preserved from being 
 worn out and destroyed by constant wear 
 and use such as they were formerly sub- 
 jected to. Then in the matter of copies, 
 — the specifications are printed of all 
 patents issued since 1866, and all of the 
 drawings have been photolithographedj 
 so that in less than three days' time one 
 can obtain any copy of these patents for 
 the sum of ten cents. In 1866, the only 
 way to obtain a copy of a patent in the 
 Office was to have the drawing traced by 
 hand and a manuscript copy made of the 
 specification. It would take from one to 
 six weeks to obtain one of these copies, 
 and the expense was considerable. A 
 dollar and a half was about the smallest 
 cost for a copy of any patent, while 
 copies requiring more drawing and longer 
 specifications greatly exceeded thi-s cost. 
 The writer has paid thirty-eight dollars 
 for a copy of a patent which now can be 
 obtained for ten cents. Notwithstanding 
 this low price for these copies, the Patent 
 Office derives a substantial profit from its 
 sales. Twenty-five years ago the dsaw- 
 
THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM. 
 
 151 
 
 ings for an application were made on a 
 sheet of paper fifteen by twenty inches 
 square. Instead of being all line work 
 and jet black, brush shading, and all the 
 colors of the rainbow were permissible. 
 It was a common practice to show 
 different materials in different colors ; for 
 instance, the steel was colored blue, 
 brass, and wood were represented yellow, 
 and if certain parts were shown in more 
 than one position in one figure of a draw- 
 ing, one of these positions was repre- 
 sented in red. Instead of requiring 
 only one drawing, as at present, the ap- 
 plicant was required to furnish a copy of 
 his drawing on tracing muslin, the latter 
 to be attached to his patent when issued. 
 The specification, instead of being printed, 
 was in manuscript, on paper of the same 
 size as the drawing, namely, — fifteen by 
 twenty inches, making quite a cumber- 
 some document, which was very incon- 
 venient to carry or examine. Commis- 
 sioner Theaker commenced printing the 
 specifications November 20, 1866, and at 
 the same time reduced the size of patents 
 and drawings from fifteen by twenty to 
 ten by fifteen. The copy of the drawing 
 in tracing muslin to be attached to the 
 patent was still required. In June, 1869, 
 the Patent Office, under Commissioner 
 Fisher, commenced photolithographing 
 drawings of all patents, after which the 
 applicant was not required to furnish a 
 copy of his drawing other than the 
 original, the copy for attachment to the 
 patent being furnished by the Office with- 
 out expense to the applicant. This 
 change necessitated the abolishing of 
 all colors, except black from the original 
 drawings ; but the inventor's name and 
 the title of the invention the applicant 
 placed upon the head of each sheet of his 
 drawings, and all the fancy work both in 
 color and design that the draughtsman 
 could conceive of was lavishly bestowed 
 upon this lettering. In the month of 
 May, 187 1, the Office still further re- 
 duced the size of patents, and the drawing 
 attached thereto, from ten by fifteen inches 
 to eight by eleven and one half inches. 
 This size has been continued until the 
 present time. The original drawings are 
 still made on a sheet ten by fifteen inches 
 in size, which are reduced by photolitho- 
 
 graphy to the size of the present patent. 
 About the time of thus reducing the size 
 of the patent, the applicant was debarred 
 the privilege of putting the fancy letter- 
 ing upon his drawing and compelled to 
 leave it blank, so that the Office might 
 fill in the title and inventor's name with 
 a uniform style of type. Another im- 
 portant improvement resulting from 
 photolithographing is the furnishing of 
 complete copies of the drawings and 
 specifications to public libraries, so that 
 inventors all over the United States can 
 have ready access to them. 
 
 In January, 1869, Commissioner Foote 
 commenced publishing a weekly list of 
 claims, which was furnished to subscri- 
 bers at the rate of $5 per annum. Soon 
 after. Commissioner Fisher added to this 
 list a pamphlet containing Commission- 
 ers' decisions which was issued at inter- 
 vals of from one to two months. These 
 were furnished without further expense to 
 all subscribers for the weekly list of 
 claims. These claims were stereotyped, 
 so that at the close of the year they 
 could be printed in the annual report, 
 but they were not illustrated. Commis- 
 sioner Fisher advised the discontinuance 
 of the publication of the annual report ; 
 and the joint resolution of Congress, 
 dated January 11, 187 1, abolished the 
 old form of annual reports. At that time 
 the reports for 1869 had not been pub- 
 lished, and the appropriations for the 
 same expired July i, 1869. It was soon 
 found that the abolishment of these re- 
 ports was a mistake, and as a substitute 
 therefor Commissioner Leggett com- 
 menced the publication of the present 
 Official Gazette, containing illustrations 
 of all the patents each week, and they 
 have been published continually since 
 that time. The Gazette is such a great 
 improvement over the old annual reports 
 that we are glad those were abolished, for 
 if they had not been abolished, under a 
 mistaken idea and by an under estimate 
 of their value, we never should have had 
 the present Official Gazette. 
 
 The Patent Office was never before in 
 so good a condition as it is to-day, and 
 all this has come not from being a favored 
 child of the government and the reci- 
 pient of lavish support, but it has come 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 152 
 
 SC/CCESS. 
 
 in spite of neglect and abuse. The office 
 can spend from its own earnings only so 
 much as Congress may be pleased to give 
 it, and in fact it has not even been cred- 
 ited with all* of its own earnings. The 
 Patent Commissioner formerly had charge 
 of the Department of Agriculture, and 
 the entire expenses of that department 
 were paid by the Patent Office for a 
 period of twenty-five years. Says Sen- 
 ator Piatt : 
 
 " The Agricultural Department is the daughter 
 of the Patent Office; but we have taken the 
 daughter away from her mother; we have built 
 her a fine house and furnished elegant surround- 
 ings; we have given her costly and fashionable 
 clothing; we pet, I will not say pamper her; we 
 pay her every possible attention, while the old 
 lady, her foster mother, still scrubs along in the 
 kitchen of the Interior Department, and' is never 
 noticed except when she deposits the surplus of 
 her daily earnings in the Treasury for the benefit 
 of the rest of the family. It is a shame, and the 
 inventors are beginning to regard it as a shame, 
 and they are going to be heard in their demand 
 that the Patent Office shall receive better treat- 
 ment than it has received." 
 
 That demand has been made by every 
 commissioner, for more than fifty years. 
 At the same time, every effort has been 
 made to make the m.ost of the facilities 
 at hand, until' the Patent Office has been 
 
 019 974 499 
 
 brought into as good a condition as pos- 
 sible so long as it cannot use its own 
 money without the permission of Con- 
 gress. Formerly, inventors had to wait 
 from twelve to fifteen months, and in 
 some classes even eighteen months, be- 
 fore their applications were reached for 
 examination. Now there is not a room 
 in the Patent Office that is six months 
 behind in its work. This condition has 
 not been brought about by reason of a 
 decrease in the number of applications 
 or in the number of patents issued, nor 
 by having more help, more room, or 
 more money ; it was done in spite of a 
 great increase in the number of applica- 
 tions, and with the same help, the same 
 room, and the same amount of money as 
 heretofore. In i888, 20,420 patents 
 were issued. In 1889, there were 24,158 , 
 an increase of almost one-fifth. The 
 weekly issue of patents in 1888 was a little 
 less than four hundred. It is now more 
 than five hundred almost every week. 
 
 While our patent system is not what it 
 would be with better facilities, we may 
 point w^th pride to the fact that even in 
 its crippled condition we have the best 
 and most perfect patent system of any 
 country in the w^orld. 
 
 ♦ ■»».♦ 
 
 JAMES SHEPARD, 
 
 84 West Main Street, 
 
 New Britain, Conn, 
 
 SOLICITOR OK 
 
 Patents, and Expert in Patent Causes. 
 
LV_i- 
 
 Conservfltinn ResmimMc 
 
■iiiiini'' 
 
 019 974 499 9