taken out to something very remote to biscuit making, but it had one claim in it that covered the point that he brought up here. He might have bought that patent so as to be covered on that one particular point. The inventor might have looked upon it as a suppression of his patent because the patent might have called for-I don't know what it might have been, it might have been a perfectly useless object but had one claim which bore upon this particular baker. Now the inventor might through some reasoning say, "Well, my patent was suppressed." Mr. Graham might never have had any intention, desire, or hope of commercializing the article on which that patent bore. That possibly, you might reason, was a suppressed patent; there may be some cases of that kind. I know of none; I know of no valid, real case of a suppressed patent.

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SINGLE COURT OF PATENT APPEALS1

Mr. DIENNER. One more question. Are you familiar with the proposal for a single court of patent appeals in the system, and what are your views on that, briefly?

Mr. BAEKELAND. I think it would be an excellent thing if we had a single court of patent appeals, a court composed of several justices who were technically trained, because as scientific inventions and discoveries become more complex it is even difficult for technicians within the field to follow some of these things, and it is wholly unfair to expect the judge to be able to pick his way through a mass of technical detail and facts presented in a patent case. Even technicians within the field themselves are sometimes at a loss, experts in patents are sometimes at a loss to follow what is going on. Much that is brought up in a patent suit is new, it is novel, or it wouldn't be the subject of a patent. The more we could have patent suits conducted or judged upon by men who are competent to judge technical situations I think the better will be our decisions in the patent cases. A Federal judge told me that it was terribly bewildering to him to try to fathom his way through one of these cases, and I can readily understand it, so that if we had a court composed of, say, three judges who had been patent attorneys, men who were trained, say, one in electricity, one in chemistry, who at least knew the terms that were used and could refer to the literature, or anything of the sort, to bring themselves up to date on the point in question, it would be a great help; or we could have a court with permanent paid experts, technical experts, whose sole function was to aid the court, not men who were brought in from the outside from time to time, but men who had permanent positions and were properly paid. That would also be a great help, but I think those men should be subject to cross-examination by attorneys in the case.

Mr. DIENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is our last witness that we wish to call, and I shall now turn the proceedings back to you and to Secretary Patterson.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Baekeland, I think I can say for the committee and certainly I say for myself that I feel my education has been very much advanced this afternoon. We are very much indebted to you for a very illuminating statement.

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Chairman, I should like to call upon Mr. Coe, the Commissioner of Patents, to make a closing statement on our patent situation.

1 For previous discussion of the proposed court, see p. 900 et seq. and p. 906 et seq.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad indeed to hear him. (The witness, Mr. Baekeland, was excused.)

Mr. COE. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Secretary Patterson and myself I wish to state that, with the testimony just offered, the oral evidence in respect to the part played by the patent system in our industrial organism is concluded. I regret that we have had insufficient time to offer to you the testimony of additional witnesses who have been here and were prepared to take the stand. However, their testimony would have been to a large extent cumulative, and for that reason we do not regard it necessary to prolong the hearing.

By providing for the expression of the views of some of those making use of the patent system-inventors and manufacturers, large and small-we have sought to give a fair and objective, though necessarily incomplete, portrayal of the system in operation. It is our hope that we have assisted you in appraising the actual importance and the potentialities of the system in our national economy.

In the statement made to you by the Commissioner of Patents we have identified certain abuses which exist in the system, in our judgment, and have proposed remedies for them. The studies which have prompted the presentation of these facts and recommendations will not, of course, be abandoned with their submission to your committee. Both the Department of Commerce and the Patent Office will continue their study of the patent system and their efforts to improve it still further.

These hearings on the patent system have stirred widespread interest in the subject, and, we are persuaded, will result in beneficial action. For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we wish to record our gratefulness to the committee, our appreciation of the cooperative and frank attitude shown by the witnesses, and the valufable assistance of the able counsel who have conducted the hearings or us.

Senator KING. I would like to ask this question. I recall the recommendations which were made with respect to procedural matters. I suggest that it might be of advantage to the committee, I am sure it would be to me, if those recommendations were put into concrete form, in the shape of amendments to the existing law, so that we could consider them at the conclusion of the testimony in the event that the committee should decide that the patent law should be amended, particularly the procedural features. The measures which would be drafted pursuant to those recommendations I am sure would be helpful.

Mr. PATTERSON. As part of the record, Senator King?

Senator KING. Oh, no.

Mr. COE. Senator, I might assure you of our wholehearted cooperation in that respect.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is very much indebted to the Department of Commerce for this presentation, and we also thank Mr. Dienner and his staff.

Mr. DIENNER. I appreciate that very much, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand in recess, subject to the call of the chair.

(Whereupon, at 4:40 p. m., an adjournment was taken subject to the call of the chairman.)