« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Patent Office Society
Published monthly by the Patent Office Society Office of Publication 3928 New Hampshire Ave., Washington, D. C. Subscription $2.50 a year
Single copy 25 cents EDITORIAL BOARD E. C. Reynolds, Chairman and Editor-in-chief. G. P. Tucker.
E. R. Cole
M. 0. Price. N. J. Brumbaugh
R. E. Adams
W. I. Wyman
R. L. Glass
3928 New Hampshire Ave., Washington, D. C. N. E. Eccleston, Circulation. Entered as second class matter, September 17, 1918, at the post office
at Washington, D. C., under the act of March 3, 1879.
Publication of signed articles in this journal is not to be understood as an adoption by the Patent Office Society of the views expressed therein. The editors are glad to have pertinent articles submitted.
The Office work report for Aug. 1 shows 2 divisions having an oldest date of less than 4 months; 8 under 5 months; 25 under 6 months; 41 under 7 months and only 2 over 8 months. The number of patent applications awaiting action on this date was 60,028, and of trademarks, 1708.
The following new divisions were established on Aug.
Division 50, Examiner, C. L. Blake, classes 91,
106, 134, 154. Division 51, Examiner, C. D. Backus, classes 176,
178, 179, 250. Division 52, Examiner, E. C. Morgan, classes 227, 228, 248, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288.
. Division 53, Examiner, M. E. Peck, classes 11,
35, 120, 129, 135, 156, 281, 282, 283.
At the time of going to press, the following divisions were located in their new quarters.
The following divisions are expected to move to the Land Office Building as soon as their new quarters are ready for occupancy.
Div. Room 16 242 22 244
Div. Room 51 240 53
Simplifying Office Procedure.
Secretary of the Interior Work, today took steps to formulate a committee composed of representatives of the American Bar Association and leading Patent Bar Associations of the country to simplify methods of procedure and expedite the business of the Patent Office.
Through the Commissioner of Patents, invitations were sent to the Presidents of the American Bar Association, American Patent Law Association, New York Patent Law Association, Chicago Patent Law Association, Cleveland Patent Law Association, Michigan Patent Law Association, and Pittsburgh Patent Law Association asking them to nominate a member to serve on the committee.
The plan of Secretary Work is to have the committee after its organization make a thorough review of the Patent Office and to submit suggestions for changes in methods that should result in bringing the work of the bureau to a current basis in the near future. Because of a tremendous increase in the patent business during the last few years the Patent Office has been unable to keep up with the number of applications for patents that have been filed by the public. A copy of the letter addressed to the various bar associations follow:
“Recognizing the great value of the Patent Office in the development of the industrial life of the United States, I am especially desirous of doing anything possible to simplify methods of procedure and to expedite the business of that office.
“In all institutions where methods of procedure have gradually developed, the general tendency is that such procedure becomes more complicated, especially where both technical and legal questions are involved, as time passes, in the same cases. Therefore, in my judgment, it would serve a very useful purpose, not only for your profession but for the public as well, to have a thorough review of the Patent Office. This is particularly true at the present
time on account of the tremendous increase of patent business and the difficulty the Commissioner is experiencing in bringing the work to a current basis promptly.
“Under the circumstances, I am asking the President of the Patent Bar Associations and the President of the American Bar Association to nominate members of such a committee to review the operations of the Patent Office and to submit suggestions to simplify methods of procedure and to expedite business. This committee should be composed of about seven members, possibly one from New York, one from Chicago, one from Cleveland, one from Pittsburgh, one from Detroit, and two from the city of Washington, one representing the National Association of Patent Lawyers, and the other representing the American Bar Association. I have selected the cities named because each has a well organized patent bar association.
“Unfortunately, the Department has no funds available for the purpose of paying any expenses of the committee, and services will have to be voluntary. Office quarters and stenographic or clerical assistance will be supplied.
“The Commissioner of Patents cordially approves this suggestion and joins with me in inviting you to nominate a member of this committee from Wasliington.” (P. N. 7753)
ANDREW R. BENSON.
Andrew R. Benson was born February 3, 1866, near Springfield, Clark County, Ohio.
At an early age he was removed to Clinton, Iowa; where he was educated in the public schools of that city.
In 1890 he was graduated from the University of Michigan in the Civil Engineering course.
He followed the profession of Civil Engineer for four