to the neighborhood of that building are already so burdened during rush hours as to be retarded and somewhat stalled, the additional burden developed by the new building becomes a serious matter for the transportation lines and for the people.

At this time our Federal authorities have before them the proposal to place a group of large public buildings on the area bounded by Pennsylvania avenue, Twelfth street, the Mall and Fifteenth street. It is well to consider what effect that close grouping of such buildings will have on street congestion and on transportation of people into that part of Washington.

The many workers who will occupy those buildings are at present scheduled to begin work at 9 o'clock and to leave work at 4:30 o'clock. That makes two peak periods of pedestrian and automobile and bus and street railway movement of people. That movement will concentrate at that group of buildings. It is well to try to forecast what conditions will arise from adding that traffic to the traffic already existing in that locality.

The ideal location for a place employing such a large number of people is a place from which long transportation lines may radiate in all directions into residence. areas. The proposed location for these new buildings is not such a location. In some directions from that location there are no residence areas at all. Access to that location is one-sided. The approaches being thus limited, there is the more tendency to congestion in the approach

es.

Should not those buildings be distributed, in order that the transportation burden may be divided? Should there not be distribution along Pennsylvania avenue and along B street between Fifteenth street and the Capitol Grounds, a distance of one mile?

Should there not now be made an estimate of all public buildings needed during the next twenty-five or fifty years and locations noted for such buildings, the locations being chosen with reference to convenient communication between buildings needing such inter-communi

cation and also with reference to transportation of the workers and to accessibility by persons having business with the departments or bureaus occupying the buildings?

As an example of convenient location, reference is made to the Patent Office. There provision is made for easy approach from all directions. The F street and the G street car lines pass at opposite sides and extend eastward to the Union station, the Capitol, the Library of Congress and residence districts, and westward to and beyond the Treasury and the White House and distant residence areas. The Seventh street and the Ninth street railway lines extend north and south at each side, reaching many near and distant places in the city. Ample provision for automobile traffic east and west and north and south over long distances is made by Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth streets, and D, E, F, G and H streets and their connections.

This same facility for approach should be considered for all the public buildings and attained as far as feasible.

In connection with the location of the group of public buildings now under consideration, the problem of parking automobiles should be kept in view. Are not the streets in that vicinity now occupied to the limit by parked automobiles? What is to be done with the large additional number of automobiles in which the occupants of the new buildings will seek to come from their homes?

A COMMUNICATION.

The following suggestions for changes in procedure would, I believe, result in expediting the prosecution of cases before the Patent Office.

While the continued agitation has been for the elimination of appeals, it is possible in at least one instance to expedite matters by allowing an additional appeal. I

refer to an appeal from the decision of the Law Examiner affirming the opposing party's right to make the claims forming the counts of an interference. I have in mind one case wherein more than 1,000 pages of testimony were taken in various parts of the United States at a cost in excess of $15,000, only to have the case decided by the appellate tribunals on the sole ground that one of the parties had no right to make the claims. Almost every practicing attorney could cite instances of this nature. If, in addition to the actual time and expense of taking testimony, there is added the time and cost of writing the briefs digesting this testimony, the final hearing relative thereto, the time of the Office in digesting the testimony, reading the briefs and writing a decision, it will be seen that there results a huge waste which could be prevented by the simple expedient of granting an appeal from the decision of the Law Examiner affirming an applicant's right to make the claims. Compared to the waste of time and money involved in the taking of testimony and carrying the interference through to final hearing, the time lost by such an appeal would be inconsequential. It might be desirable to grant but one appeal, preferably direct to the Commissioner, so that both parties may know that, at least so far as the Patent Office is concerned, the issue has been determined definitely.

A second case where matters could in many instances be expedited relates to the copying of claims from a patent by an applicant. Where the Primary Examiner holds that a patentee may copy these claims, the question can be taken to the Law Examiner in the first instance inter-partes, and from a favorable decision by the Law Examiner upholding applicant's right to make the claims an appeal should lie at once to the Examiner-in-Chief or direct to the Commissioner, as outlined in the preceding paragraph. Where, however, the Primary Examiner denies the applicant's right to copy the claims of a patent, and if the Examiner-in-Chief allow the claims to the applicant, the question is decided ex parte without giving the patentee an opportunity to be heard at this time.

When later during the course of the interference the patentee duly makes a motion to dissolve before the Law Examiner on the ground that applicant has no right to make the claims, he finds himself confronted with the practically insurmountable barrier of having had the very question he is presenting to the Law Examiner already decided by a superior tribunal, but without his being represented. Needless to say, the Law Examiner's predisposition is to follow the Board and uphold applicant's right to make the claims. Testimony must then be taken and the case carried through to final hearing. The Examiner of Interferences will not pass on the question of applicant's right to make the claims and on appeal to the Examiners-in-Chief the patentee finds that the question has already been decided by them ex parte, and it is only natural for the Examiners-in-Chief to favor upholding rather than disaffirming their prior decision. It is not until the case reaches the Commissioner that the patentee obtains virtually his first wholly unbiased interpartes hearing, and even here he labors under the disadvantage of apparent adverse decisions by the Law Examiner, Examiner of Interferences, and two decisions by the Examiners-in-Chief. In effect, therefore, the right of applicant to make the counts has been decided ex parte, without giving the patentee an opportunity to be heard before the first appellate tribunal when said tribunal was still open-minded on the question. If the patentee were allowed to appear on the ex parte appeal by the applicant from the adverse decision of the Primary Examiner and properly present his side, there are many instances where an applicant would not secure the right to copy the claims of the patent and the interference would never be started. This is true partly because on the ex parte appeal the patent is not before the Examiners-in-Chief, and the terms of the claims are given their broadest possible interpretation, whereas the claims having originated in the patent, the terms derive their interpretation, definitions, and limitations from the patent specification and drawings.

In this case, regardless of whether or not interference proceedings are expedited by this procedure, it would seem to be proper as a matter of pure justice to allow the patentee to be heard in the first instance before an unbiased tribunal, since from the very beginning the question of applicant's right to copy the claims of a patent is an inter-partes matter. Certainly a patentee having been granted a patent by the Patent Office, which by its very issue presupposes validity, should be given every opportunity by the Office to defend his vested rights and not be handicapped unnecessarily by denying him an opportunity to appear and defend his rights until after a decision has been rendered to his prejudice.

I have discussed both of the above suggested changes in procedure with a number of attorneys and all of theri. felt that such changes were highly desirable in the light of their own experience.

(Signed) JOSEPH H. LIPSCHUTZ.

PERIODICAL ARTICLES.

Industrial Invention: Heroic, or Systematic?

An exceedingly interesting and worth-while article of the above title takes up forty pages of the Quarterly Journal of Economics for February, 1926. The author, Ralph C. Epstein, notes that as a result of restricted immigration there has been of necessity a mechanization of industry. The assumption has been that this could be carried out indefinitely, granted the possibilities of the capital expenditure, to meet any need. In other words, given the necessity and the money, inventors would produce machines to meet the needs.

Mr. Epstein proposes to inquire how far this faith is warranted; what are the conditions of invention; do economic and commercial needs unfailingly bring forth