without notice under 4904 of the Prior pending art that would interfere with the rights granted therein is not only clearly in violation of the contractual and constitutional character of the grant, but also is in plain violation of the express terms of the grant.

It is submitted that in all cases in which the real invention in pending applications or applications and patents interfere, notice should be sent to the parties whose interests would be affected without reference to the particular claims in the cases and that interferences should be declared in all such cases.

While these elementary observations have been made with reference to the question of interference with a view to inducing the examiner to study the fundamentals involved in the matter of interference under the statute, yet in order that this general question may be pursued a step further, the practice under Rule 75 will now be considered.

We have in former lectures been well informed of the essentials of affidavits under Rule 75 filed in order that the bar of prior patents granted within two years prior to the application may be avoided.

It is, however, with reference to its relation to the matter of interference under section 4904 that consideration will now be given. And to illustrate the fundamental point sought to be made resort will again be made to the crushing roll and the machine including the crushing rolls, for illustration. Let it be assumed that the application filed by one inventor for the alleged combination including the novel crushing roll was filed first and the application by another inventor for the novel crushing roll per se has been later filed. And let it be assumed that the application for the alleged combination has gone to patent without notice to the later applicant and the claim for the roll per se has been afterwards rejected upon the patent. The inventor of the roll per se files an affidavit under Rule 75 in which he states facts showing that he completed the invention in this country prior to the date of filing of the patentee's earlier application and his patent issues for the novel roll per se, so

that we now have two patents granted, one for the combination including the novel roll, and one for the novel roll per se and the exclusive rights granted to the first patentee are thus interfered with by the superior exclusive rights granted to the second patentee without notice to the first patentee. The real invention in these two cases is the same, for as we have seen in considering the educational and the contractual character of the grant, the real invention is that embodiment of the inventive disclosure which corresponds in scope and character with the extent to which the people will have been educated thereby and in both of these cases the people will have been taught to make a new and useful crushing roll and if it be that the real invention is the same in both of these cases and that the invention in one case does not become a different invention in another case because it may be improperly claimed therein, then it is submitted as a matter for elementary consideration and study whether under Revised Statute 4904 before the allowance of the later application the prior patentee should not have been notified of said later application, the grant of which would interfere with the already existing exclusive rights granted to him. Not only in order to prevent violation of exclusive rights in the patent when granted, but also to prevent double patenting and to prevent harmful litigation, notices under Revised Statutes 4904 should be sent both under Rule 75 and Rule 96 to applicants and to patentees advising them of the pending art containing claims that would interfere with the exclusive rights to which they would otherwise be entitled, without reference to whether the properly or improperly drawn claims be directed to the same matter or not.

These are some of the fundamentals which, it is thought, should be considered by those who may be unfamiliar with the elementary principles involved in the establishment of the Patent System and in the grant or refusal of Letters Patent for inventors, and the deeper and more thorough the consideration of these fundamental truths involved in the study and application of the principles to which reference has been made, the

clearer will be the course to be pursued, not only in facilitating, expediting and improving the examiners' work, but also in avoiding criticism of, and in dissipating opposition to, the Patent System and to the present system of prosecution and official examination of patent applications.

If at any time, however, criticism or opposition to the Patent System appear among the people in whose interest it was established, the attitude of those concerned will doubtless be attributed to the following causes:

1st. Becauses the people generally have not been informed and do not know that letters patent for inventions are not monopolies in restraint of the existing right of the people, but that they create new forms of property for the whole people to be freely enjoyed by them after a period of exclusive ownership by the patentees.

2nd. Because the people generally have not been informed and do not know that the Patent System was established in the interest of the people as an industrial educational system, to educate the people to establish and practice new or improved industrial arts and enterprises and thereby to promote the industrial progress and material welfare of the whole people.

3rd. Because the people generally have not been informed and do not know that Letters Patent for inventions, are contracts made in the ultimate interest of the people, between the people on one hand and inventors on the other hand, the terms of this contract being that inventors agree to publish complete disclosures and distinct definitions of their inventions, which otherwise may be kept secret by them, and that the people in consideration of the disclosure and publication thereof agree to make inventors secure in the exclusive rights to their inventions, the Government through its designated officials being charged with the duty of seeing that the terms of these contracts are fair alike to the people and to inventors.

4th. Because the people have not been informed and do not know that the only means provided in terms by the constitution to promote industrial progress and pros

perity, are the rights granted to inventors of the secure and exclusive ownership of their inventions for limited times.

And if criticism of or opposition to the present system of prosecution and official examination of patent applications at any time develop, this attitude of those concerned may be found to exist because of the following conditions:

1st. Because some of those who solicit patents are known to prosecute patent applications solely to obtain patents and the incidental fees, without regard to whether the alleged inventions may promote the progress of the useful arts in the interest of the people and without reference to whether inventors are made secure or exclusive in the rights to their inventions and,

2nd. Because we examiners, in some instances at least, have granted some patents the examination record of which shows the distinct need of:

1st. A uniform standardized system of instruction for assistant examiners (possibly in a single Division of Instruction), and,

2nd. A uniform standardized system of examination of applications consisting of:

1st. A mature and deliberate examination of the alleged invention in the whole disclosure to find patentable matter, in the interest of the inventor, and thorough search in the prior art to find statutory bars in the interest of the people as indicated in Revised Statute 4893.

2nd. Standardized official actions giving full information in the interest of the inventor and full citation of references in the interest of the people as indicated in Revised Statute 4903.

3rd. Due and timely notice of all pending applications which would, if granted for the real inventions therein, interfere with and make insecure and unexclusive the rights to inventions in other applications or patents, as indicated in Revised Statute 4904.

It is submitted that only by some such uniform standardized system of examination of applications as this, may the work of examiners be made to conform to the

fundamental principles involved in the educational character and in the contractual character of the grant and possibly only by such a system as this may the examiner's work be made to comply with constitutional requirements which are controlling.

September 28, 1916.

PATENT ATTORNEY OR AGENT?

Editor of THE JOURNAL OF THE PATENT OFFICE SOCIETY: Sir:

Included herewith you will find an article (a "fully responsive action," as we call it in Patent Office vernacular, i. e., answering all the adduced points and references) and I trust that for the sake of American fair play and justice you may publish it in your esteemed journal. I shall assume all responsibility for this article.

Yours very truly,

R. A. HOFFMAN.

"Audiatur et altera pars!"

In the June No. a. c. of your Journal I have read with great interest the Report of the Special Committee of the American Patent Law Association on the use of the word "Attorney."

Before commenting upon the propriety of the allegations contained in this report I must confess that, although being a Patent Attorney of long experience and integrity, I am not a member of the Bar and consequently I belong to the class of "undesirables," whom the sponsors of the Section 4, inserted by amendment in the Crampton Bill, wish to stigmatize as incompetent to properly assist inventors in securing their legal rights through the Patent Office, for that would be the practical outcome