a classification. If it were possible to place any reliance on a classification for grouping under one heading all disclosures along a specific and clearly defined line, the field of search would be restricted by more accurate and reliable definition of its boundaries, to a much greater extent than it would be increased by the inclusion of some patents disclosing a feature but not claiming it.

The decimal system was used, with a carefully chosen set of definitions for the 9 main headings, leaving precise definition of the subheadings, in each instance, until the main heading contained a large enough number of patents to afford a good basis for determining workable lines of division.

A set of patents classified as above outlined has been continued and in use for about a year. It now contains 3609 copies of 1613 patents, so that the average number of times a patent is listed is 2.24.

The classification contains 10 main classes numbered 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; 48 secondary, or two-figure classes formed by subdivision of six of the main classes; 54 three-figure classes formed by subdivision of twentythree two-figure classes; 24 four-figure classes formed by subdivision of fifteen three-figure classes; and 5 fivefigure classes formed by subdivision of four four-figure classes. This makes a total of 142 classes, with an average of 241⁄2 copies per class. As soon as a class contains more than about seventy-five copies, a study is, made and the class is further subdivided.

When any class is subdivided, the subdivision ending in 0 is reserved for general and miscellaneous disclosures, and usually it has been found advantageous to reserve 8 for elements of the combination of the subdivided class, and 9 for accessories to such combination.

One year's experience with this set of patents is believed to support the following conclusions, at least tentatively.

First: The work of classifying and the clerical work of purchasing patent copies and maintaining the file will probably pay for itself within less than another year,

in the decreased cost and increased speed with which it is possible to make searches of all kinds. A large number of minor matters are disposed of within an hour or so, and not only is the delay incident to making a search in Washington avoided, but the time spent in making the search is much less than would be required to cover the same ground elsewhere.

Second: A decimal system in itself is no guarantee of clear lines of division or a permanently satisfactory arrangement of classes and subclasses, but it is a material aid to clear thinking in the work of developing such a classification. While one or two instances have developed during the process of subclassification indicating the desirability of slight revision in the definitions and lines of division between the main classes, it has been a surprise to see how little material has had to find its way into the miscellaneous headings reserved to take care of unforeseen contingencies.

Third: The actual work of classifying is based on the drawing and description, the claims being practically ignored as a classification guide. Nevertheless, the superior efficiency, for the special purpose desired, of the classified set above outlined, is at least as great for infringement searches as for novelty and validity searches.

Fourth: Questions not definitely answered as a result of preliminary search, and matters of importance are always forwarded for further search in Washington. When this is done, a half hour preliminary search often eliminates one or more features or lines of inquiry in such a way as to save a much greater amount of time searching in the Patent Office records, which are, of course, much more comprehensive but much less conveniently classified for the special purpose in view.

The local classified set is far from comprehensive, but it is being slowly and constantly enlarged. If the local set were more complete, its superiority would be more marked, but the expense of maintaining it is probably a more than linear function of its size, and it remains to be seen what the economical size limit is.

Note-On Form 22.

The last revised edition of the Rules of Practice contains an oversight included in previous editions in connection with Form 22 for a Supplemental Oath under Rule 48. Reference to the Rule Book will show that the affiant is required to state positively, rather than on information and belief, facts as to prior patenting and publication or public use, which he could not possibly affirm, except on information and belief. It is noted that Form 18 is carefully worded to avoid any such improper requirement.

THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.
A Short Account of Its History, Organization
And Procedure.

WILLIAM I. WYMAN.

Primary Examiner, Div. 33

(Note: This is a reprint of a pamphlet which was published in 1919 by the Patent Office Society for general distribution. Although 50,000 were printed, the edition is exhausted. At the suggestion of the Editor, Mr. Wyman has consented to modify it for insertion in the columns of the Journal to bring the subject matter up to date.)

The patent system, by which an inventor was given a limited enjoyment of his invention as a reward for his services to the community, originated in England. The famous "Statute of Monopolies," enacted in 1623, abolished all exclusive economic privileges but established the right of an inventor to receive as a reward from the state. a grant commensurate with the services rendered. Thus the very act which first recognized the reprehensible character of private monopoly was the means for establishing, for the first time in history, the right of patent protection.

Early Days of The Patent System In America.

The first patent granted on this continent was to Samuel Winslow, by the General Court of Massachusetts in

1641, for a novel method of making salt. Connecticut also was early active in encouraging invention and required, as the basis of a patent grant, that the invention "shall be judged profitable to the country." The spirit of the "Statute of Monopolies" was thus promptly carried over to this side of the water and was followed more faithfully in some of the colonies than in the mother country, where it originated.

The basis of the patent system in the United States is a provision in the Constitution giving Congress the power to secure to inventors for limited times an exclusive right to their respective discoveries. Madison was mainly instrumental in introducing this provision into the Constitution. The first legislative enactment was the law of 1790, which was placed on the statute book after Washington had addressed Congress in its favor. Under it, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Attorney-General constituted a board for the examination of applications and grant of patents. The first Secretary of State was Thomas Jefferson, and as he was, through his office, the keeper of the records, he became in fact the first administrator of the patent system in this country. He was exceedingly interested in his duty and was the most active member of the board, examining personally every application filed during his term.

Establishment of Present Patent System by Congress.

In 1793 the Patent Act was changed so as to permit anyone to obtain a patent, whether or not he was the original inventor and whether or not his contribution was useful or novel. In 1836 the present system was established by an act passed through the efforts of Senator Ruggles of Maine. This law instituted the so-called American method of granting patents only after a thorough examination into the utility, operativeness, and novelty of the inventions, and provided the machinery and the procedure for carrying out the purpose of the act. It created a revolution in the methods of granting

patents comparable in effect with the institution of the patent system itself.

Previous to 1802, the administration of the patent system was conducted as part of the general clerical business of the State Department. In that year the Patent Office, as a distinct unit, was created, and Dr. William Thornton was appointed as its first superintendent, at a salary of $1400, by Secretary of State Madison. The Office was not established by law, but was instituted through Madison's action. It was the only personal appointment made by Madison upon his accession to the portfolio.

Dr. Thornton was of English extraction, a graduate of medicine in Edinburgh, and had traveled extensively in Europe. He was the first designer of the Capitol, had a scientific turn of mind and was a man of varied accomplishments. He was appointed by President Washington a member of the Board of Commissioners under the act to establish a seat of the Government. At his suggestion the first agricultural fair in this country was held, in 1804, in Washington. He was a gentleman of culture, entered vigorously into the intellectual and social life of the time, was on intimate terms with the prominent men of the day, and was a very close personal friend of Madison, who lived next door to him in Georgetown.

Dr. Thornton was born on the island of Jost van Dyke, British West Indies. He landed in this country in 1786 and took the oath of fealty in 1788. In response to an advertisement from the Commissioners of the Federal City instituting a prize competition for plans for the Capitol, Dr. Thornton submitted drawings. President Washington, who was much interested, singled out Dr. Thornton's contribution and wrote of it as follows: "Grandeur Simplicity and Convenience appear so well Combined in this plan of Dr. Thornton's, that I have no doubt of its meeting approbation from you. He was awarded the prize of $500 and a lot valued about the same. His plan formed the nucleus of the present structure.

Another notable building designed by the doctor is the Octagon House, at the corner of Eighteenth Street and