present session of Congress which indicate that some thought major operations to be necessary. Some of these are outlined elsewhere in this issue in extracts from an address by the Chairman of the Patent, Trade Mark and Copyright Law Section of the American Bar Association, delivered in December, 1925. This address analyzes the existing situation and explains the suggested changes, including those which are now before Congress. The thoroughness of the analysis, together with the prestige of the Bar Association assure that others of these proposals will be considered by Congress in the future. Whether one approves the remedies prescribed or not, the sincerity of the effort to diagnose the symptoms manifested by our present system, and to prescribe a remedy is apparent. It remains for either the prophets or the historians to tell if it would be a case of-"The operation was successful but the patient died."

In brief the plan leans toward that school which favors a registration system, rather the other school desiring a better examination by the Patent Office. It resembles the quasi-examination system of Great Britain. The patent issued by the Office would be largely the applicant's own estimate of what he had contributed to the art, based upon such disclosure as he would choose to make, but accompanied by an Office opinion on novelty. The only objection which the Office could raise would be lack of novelty. The task of precisely defining the invention, and the extent of his monoply, would devolve upon the Courts in the event of litigation. Interferences would be abolished, and patents granted to the first applicant. A patent term of 20 years would run from the filing date.

While efforts to simplify laws and proceedure are always desirable, the fact remains that our social and industrial organization is becoming more complex each year, and our patent system is no exception. In the face of growing complexity there comes a point when simplification no longer simplifies. The experience of the socalled "code states" is that in some respects their present

law is more involved than the common law which it was intended to simplify. There is still merit in the admonition to "Make haste slowly."

A reprint of part of a pamphlet dealing with the pending Vestal Bill on revision of trade mark registration laws appears in this issue. It was prepared by a committee of the Boston Patent Law Association, which opposes the bill.

H. R. 6252, amending the Judicial Code to give the Supreme Court of the D. C. jurisdiction under R. S. 4915 and 4918 when there are two or more defendants living in different states or a foreign defendant, has passed the House.

Within The Office.

An expected gain of 6,000 cases for the first three months of 1926 turned into an actual loss of 1,164 cases. This is due to two factors: first, there were received 4,682 cases more than were received in the corresponding period of 1925, and, second, the examining corps consisted of thirty less members during this period than during the same months of 1925.

The recently instituted practice of omitting the preamble in printing the specifications of patents will effect a saving of over $8,000 a year.

After July 1, 1926, the Office, at its own expense will make a photographic copy of each sheet of drawing as filed and place it in the file wrapper. This will be a precaution against loss or temporary misplacement of the drawing, and facilitate examination of the application, and relieve the applicant of the delay and expense in securing the prints now required to be filed before a drawing can be corrected.

Shortly after this time will also be inaugurated the practice of making the record of assignments by photostat copies. This will make a visual record of the original papers, which is especially important in case of the signatures. It will eliminate about 95% of the laborious work of copying by typewriting, and comparing the record.

Practical Training of Examiners in their Arts.

Apropos of certain constructive criticisms made by Mr. Paul Truesdell which were reviewed on pages 395 and 396 of the April 1926 Journal of the Patent Office Society, relating to the fact that the examiners do not have actual (practical) training in their respective arts, it is opportune to quote from the last annual report of the Commissioner:

The Examiners should also be given an opportunity to visit industrial plants. During the last year the Office has had to train 180 inexperienced men, most of whom have had no practical experience in the industries to which they are assigned. The German Government is planning to send two of its Examiners to America to study certain American Industries, and each junior Examiner in the German Patent Office is sent to some industrial plant in his own country each year at the expense of the Government in order that he may see the practical application of the inventions in the industry to which he is assigned. With a force of 600 in the examining corps of our Office the present appropriation of $800 per annum is woefully insufficient for this purpose. This appro

priation should be largely increased, so that Assistant Examiners who are responsible for the granting of patents in the key industries may visit and actually witness the operations and activities in those industries to the end that they may properly discharge their important duties. (344 O. G. 534)

EXHIBIT AT THE EXPOSITION.

The nearness of Philadelphia, where the Sesqui-Centennial Exposition will be staged from June till December, provides both an opportunity and a duty for members of the Examining Corps to see a collection of industrial exhibits such as is gathered together in one place only in a large exposition.

The Patent Office exhibit will be among the exhibits of the Department of Commerce, in the Transportation Building and will have a floor space of about 1600 square feet. Some of the more interesting patent models will be displayed in glass cases. Charts showing the administration and functions of the Patent Office, and the growth of the patent systems of this and other countries down to the present time will be displayed. Some of the typical and basic patents will be shown, enlarged.

The Exposition grounds are located at the foot of Broad Street, in Philadelphia, fronting on the Delaware River, next to the League Island Navy Yard. The exposition opens May 31, 1926.

The Patent Office exhibit has been prepared and installed by Mr. H. C. Armstrong, Principal Examiner of Division 11.

CHARLES J. SPENCER.

Charles J. Spencer was born in Baltimore in 1876, where he studied in private and public schools, followed by three years in Baltimore City College and four years in Johns Hopkins University, from which latter he graduated in 1898 in Electrical Engineering.

While at Hopkins he developed a new oscillograph, a description of which was published in the Electrical World and Engineer of Jan. 23, 1904, and during spare time he made the first working drawings for Prof. Rowland who was developing his printing telegraph system. During the spring of 1898, three volunteers including Spencer, mined Baltimore Harbor with anchored contact

and remotely fired mines as a defense from the Spanish fleet then expected in the Chesapeake. After graduation in June, he enlisted with the 1st Vol. U. S. Engrs. in the expedition to Porto Rico.

Upon the conclusion of the war he was employed successively in the engineering departments of the Philadelphia Light and Power Co., the Philadelphia Traction Co. and the General Electric Co. at Schenectady. At the latter place he became acquainted with Dr. Steinmetz who proposed him for associate member in the A. I. E. E. His services were later secured by the New York Central and Hudson River R. R. in engineering work and subsequently by the Westinghouse Electric and Mfg. Co. in the publication department, where he initiated a new form of catalogue known as the "Perpetual" catalogue.

During this period from 1902 to 1908 he was a frequent contributor to periodical literature, publishing power cost computations in the Electrical World and Engineer Nov. 22, 1902, Feb. 14 and Feb. 28, 1903; an article on the general requirements of a certain type of alternating current motor in the same magazine Nov. 26, 1904; on a new mathematical calculation of the induction motor serially in the Electrical Age of 1907, and was editor of this latter journal for the last half of 1907. He wrote an article on Long Distance Transmission in Cassier's Magazine of October 1908, and wrote articles for and revised part of Foster's Handbook the same year.

In September, 1908 he entered the Patent Office as fourth assistant examiner, and examined applications in Class 158 under the guidance of Mr. Sullivan, Examiner of Div. 30. He was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in 1912 and of the Court of Appeals in 1913. In April, 1919 he was transferred to Div. 16 where he examined Automatic Telephony until that division was divided, Mr. Backus taking the radio art to form a new division, 51, leaving Mr. Spencer in charge of Div. 16 as ranking assistant. He was made a Principal Examiner Jan. 15, 1925.