Mr. BRYSON. If there are no further questions, we will call Mr. Federico at this time. Mr. FEDERICO. Yes, sir. (The matter above referred to is as follows:) CHANGES IN H. R. 3760 MADE AT THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING IN WASHINGTON, MAY 22, 1951 Chapter 1, section, 1 page 2: Line 10, strike out "clerks". Chapter 2, section 100, page 8: Line 2, after "includes" insert ", but is not limited to,". Line 3, after "includes" insert ", but is not limited to,". Line 4, after "machine" insert a comma and after "matter" insert a comma. Chapter 2, section 102, page 9: Line 1, strike out "A person shall be entitled to a patent unless-" and insert "An invention shall not be patentable if—”. Line 12, change "inventor" to "applicant". Paragraph (g): The coordinating committee was not satisfied with either the language of the Bill or the suggested changes proposed at the meeting since none of them wholly took care of the situation. The matter was left to Mr. Federico to prepare a redraft. After consultation with others Mr. Federico recommends the following paragraph which is intended to codify the existing law: "(g) before the applicant's invention thereof the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other." Chapter 2, section 103, page 9: Line 1, strike out "obtained though" and insert "refused or declared invalid when". Line 2, strike out "in the prior art" and insert "as". Line 3, strike out "if" and insert "unless". Line 4, change the first "that" to "the". Chapter 2, section 112, page 10: Line 12, after "structure" insert ", material". Line 14, after "thereof" cancel period and insert ", whether or not known at the time the invention was made." Chapter 2, section 116, page 12: Line 2, after "intention" insert "on the part of the omitted inventor". Chapter 2, section 118, page 12: Line 3, after "agreed" insert "in writing" and after "invention" strike out "in writing". Chapter 2, section 121, page 13: Line 12, after "title" insert a comma. Line 13, after "patent" insert "on the other application." Chapter 2, section 135, page 15: Line 12, change "No" to "Any”. Line 13, after "may" insert "not". Line 14, strike out "is made" and insert "has been made in such application prior to the issuance of said patent or". Chapter 2, section 141, page 15: Line 9, change "files" to "file". Chapter 2, section 146, page 16: Line 4, change "Commission" to "Commissioner". Chapter 3, section 201, page 18: Line 1, after "patent" strike out "through error”. Line 4, after "patent" insert "through error and". Chapter 3, section 202, page 19: Line 15, change "if" to "unless". Line 16, strike out "does not" and change "infringe" to "infringes". Chapter 3, section 203, page 20: Line 2, insert a period after "invalid” and change "and" to “A”. Chapter 3, section 206, page 21: Line 9, after "intention" insert "on the part of the omitted inventor". Chapter 3, section 211, page 21: Line 16, change "patents" to "patent". Chapter 3, section 212, page 22: Strike out entire paragraph and substitute the following: "Whenever two or more persons own a patent jointly, either by the issuing of the patent to them jointly or by reason of the assignment of an undivided interest in the patent or by reason of succession in title to such interest, each of the joint owners, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, shall be entitled to make, use or sell the patented invention, or license others so to do, or assign or encumber his interest without accounting to the other joint owners." Chapter 3, section 231, page 23: Line 1, after "liable" insert "for infringement". Line 9, strike out "a person" and insert "another". Chapter 3, section 241, page 23: Line 2, after "patent" insert "with the right to a trial by jury except in cases heretofore cognizable only in a court of equity." Chapter 3, section 242, page 23: Line 6, change "any claim" to "the claims" and after "thereof" insert "in suit". Line 11, change "of" after "validity" to "or". Chapter 3, section 244, page 24: Line 1, strike out "the court" and insert "damages"; after "shall" insert "be" and change "award" to "awarded". Line 2, strike out "damages". Chapter 3, section 251, page 25: Line 10, after "patented" insert "or made by a patented process". STATEMENT OF P. J. FEDERICO, EXAMINER IN CHIEF, UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Federico, will you please identify yourself for the record? Mr. FEDERICO. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is P. J. Federico. I am an Examiner in Chief in the Patent Office, and I am appearing at the request of the chairman and with the consent of the Commissioner to give an explanation of the background of the bill, and to supply any information relating to the patent laws that the committee might ask for. Mr. BRYSON. You may be seated, Mr. Federico. Mr. FEDERICO. Mr. Zinn, in his statement, referred to the Patent Act of 1870 with subsequent enactments adding to or changing various sections of that original act. The first patent law was enacted in the second session of the First Congress in 1790. As a matter of fact, when the First Congress met one of its very first items of business was the consideration of patents and copyrights, and the first patent bill was H. R. 10 of the First Congress. These patent laws are enacted by Congress in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution in article I, section 8, which provides that: The Congress shall have 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. This provision was unanimously adopted by the Constitutional Convention following suggestions for Federal jurisdiction over patents and over copyrights which had been made in the Convention by James Madison, of Virginia, and Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina. Each of these gentlemen proposed separate provisions relating to patents and copyrights which were merged into the general statement we now have by the Drafting Committee of the Convention, and was then adopted without any dissenting voice. The provision merits more study than has actually been given to it, particularly in the matter of the language used. The background shows that it was a merging of two suggestions for patents and copyrights, the balanced construction and the usage current then and later indicates that it is really two provisions written into one sentence. The first provision would be to promote the progress of science by securing for limited times to authors the exclusive right to their writings. The word "science" in this connection, has the meaning of knowledge in general, which is one of its meanings today. The other provision would be that Congress has the power to promote the progress of useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries. The first patent law and all patent laws up to quite a good time later were entitled “Acts to promote the progress of useful arts." The first law which was enacted, on April 10, 1790, vested the jurisdiction to issue patents in a Board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of War. The person principally interested and the leader of the group was the Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who was greatly interested in the subject matter of patent law. Mr. BRYSON. He was a patentee himself. Mr. FEDERICO. He was not actually a patentee, but he was the inventor of a number of different devices, most of them being gadgets. Jefferson has been called a lover of gadgets, and I think there is even a poem about it. Mr. BRYSON. He had a few good qualities too. Mr. FEDERICO. The law made their power absolute, and also provided for the various things that would be necessary in the patent law. While the Board, and particularly Thomas Jefferson, was quite favorable to the granting of patents, and granted them with great consideration, the other duties of the members of this Board, in view of their high offices, made it impossible for them to devote too much time to this work, and as a result of suggestions the law was changed in 1793 to make the granting of patents a clerical function. Patents were granted to anyone who applied on fulfilling the formal requirements and filing the necessary papers and fees. This law continued on the books until 1836 when the dissatisfaction with the free granting of patents without any examination as to novelty or other matters led to the appointment of a select committee by the Senate which introduced a bill that became the new law which was enacted on July 4, 1836. This new law contains the fundamental principles of our present patent law. It created a Patent Office with a Commissioner of Patents at the head, and examiners with the function of examining applications for patents and the power to refuse patents, which was not present in the previous law. Then, of course, the law had a great many other provisions in it relating to details of procedure, enforcement of patents, and matters of that sort. Amendments were made to this act of 1836 at various times until in 1870 the law was completely revised by the Commission and the committee that Mr. Zinn has referred to. The present bill in a sense, then, is the second combined revision of the patent laws by the Committee on the Revision of the Laws and the committee in charge of patents. I will describe the bill, endeavoring to give the over-all picture of the structure of the bill and its provisions. Of course, the main thing in the bill is difficult to describe, because to do so it would have to be compared with the Revised Statutes of 1874 and its language and arrangement, and the various acts passed since. The organization, language, arrangement, and matters of that sort which make the present bill seem comparatively simple cannot be appreciated without comparison with the existing statutes. The bill divides the sections into four chapters. The subject of patents has been divided into three main topics. The first chapter contains the sections of the law relating to the Patent Office generally, its powers and duties and some ancillary matters of that kind. The second chapter collects the sections relating to the conditions under which a patent may be obtained and the procedure in obtaining patents. The third chapter has the sections relating to patents themselves and the protection of rights under patents, and matters relating to that phase of the subject. Stated generally, the three chapters relate to, first, the Patent Office: second, obtaining a patent; and third, the patent itself. Of course, it has not been possible to maintain this three-part division strictly, and there may be a slight amount of overlapping of the three phases of the subject. In addition to the three chapters mentioned, a further chapter collects the laws relating to patents for plants and to patents for designs, which are treated as supplementary topics. The organization of the bill and the arrangement of the sections is such that many new topics relating to the patent laws which have come up through the past, or which have not been considered at the moment, can readily find their place in the organization. I will now try to give a bird's-eye view of the sections themselves. The sections are divided into several groups of more or less homogeneous subject matter with unnumbered subheadings. The first subgroup in chapter 1 relates to the Patent Office and its sections; the establishment of the Patent Office; the seal; officers and employees, restrictions on officers and employees as to interest in patents; bond of the Commissioner; duties of the Commission; the Board of Appeals, and the Patent Office Library. Very little change is introduced in these sections; there is a change in section 3 relating to a successor of the Commissioner when the office is vacant, filling a gap in the present law. There is a change in section 4 on the ability of Patent Office employees to obtain patents. Of course, the sections in this chapter apply to the Patent Office as such and include trade-marks, as well as patents, when they go to organizational and procedural matters. Then there is this section on classification of patents, which is one of the functions of the Patent Office; supplying certified copies of records; the listing of publications put out by the Patent Office; the exchange of copies of patents with foreign countries; copies of patents for public libraries, and the annual report to Congress. There is very little change in these sections other than language matters, and possibly other minor changes. The next group of sections collect some of the details relating to procedure in the Patent Office which apply generally, and have little or no changes in them. The next group, sections 31, 32, and 33, relate to practice before the Patent Office. In them the language has been rearranged and divided into several sections. There has been no change of substance in these sections, except in the third of this group which is a criminal provision for unauthorized practice. The language has been considerably simplified, and the maximum fine has been raised from $100 to $1,000. In the next group of sections, relating to Patent Office fees, there have been a few readjustments in some minor fees, and one change in the fee for an appeal to the Board of Appeals. That concludes the description of chapter 1, which, in the main, represent purely formal changes, with only a few changes over the present law. Chapter 2 relates to patentability of inventions and grant of patents, some of the sections of which might require a little more explanation. Referring to section 101 first, this section specifies the type of material that can be the subject matter of a patent. The present law states that any person who has invented any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any now or useful improvement thereof may obtain a patent. That language has been preserved except that the word "art" which appears in the present statute has been changed to the word "process." "Art" in this place in the present statute has a different meaning than in the phrase "useful arts" in the Constitution, and a different meaning from that of the word "art" in other places in the statutes, and it is interpreted by the courts to be synonymous with "process" or "method". The word "process" has been used to avoid the necessity of explaining every time the word "art" as used in this place means "process or method," and it does not mean the same thing as the word "art" in other places. The definition of "process" has been added in section 100 to make it clear that process or method is meant, and also to clarify the present law as to certain types of methods as to which some doubts have been expressed, although not very substantial doubts. Section 101 says, "subject to the conditions and requirements of this title" after stating the subject matter that can be patented. The conditions under which a patent may be obtained must follow, and section 102 selects the conditions relating to novelty. Now, under section 101 a person may have invented a machine or a manufacture, which may include anything under the sun that is made by man, but it may not necessarily be patentable unless the conditions are fulfilled. Section 102 in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) repeat the conditions in the present statutes relating to novelty; if the invention was known |