There is no added work, because the appeals to the court of patent appeals take the place of the same patent appeals that now go to the nine different appellate courts in the different circuits. It is the same work and the same judges do it.

It is provided in the bill that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States shall appoint, in the first instance, three judges from the circuit or district courts for three years, and three for six years, and afterwards there will be a term of six years for each of the judges designated for that work by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

There you do not have mere patent specialists. You get away from any chance of anybody saying that a man was appointed because of some special interest, because he was a patent specialist who holds known views. The judges are taken from those who have been selected by the President of the United States as the best men for their individual circuits, and the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court can be trusted to say, “I will take Judge So-and-so from New York, and I will take Judge So-and-so from Minnesota, and I will take Judge So-and-so from Texas or California, and bring them all to Washington to serve on this appellate court. They come from their different districts or circuits, each having had a certain experience in patent matters, each having lived in the community, which he has served, and undoubtedly sympathizing with the attitude of that community on patents as well as on other questions. These judges come to Washington and sit as a circuit court of appeals; and if you give them time they will surely develop a uniform patent law for the whole United States of America that will not reflect the particular attitude of any particular portion of the country, but will reflect the attitude of the country as a whole. The men who practice patent law and the men who are interested in patents, as well as the people of the country, need first of all uniformity. They want to know what the law is, and then they will adjust themselves to that law. Give a court of that kind time and it will build up a uniform patent law, not merely as far as the principles are concerned, because, as a matter of words, they are uniform today, but also as far as the atmosphere and the instincts

and the point of view are concerned, and that is the only way in which we can get the uniform patent system that we need if we are to progress industrially on sound lines.

But that is not all. These men will stay six years. Some may be reappointed or may not, but new men will be constantly coming up from the different circuits. They will sit in this patent court and will become saturated during their terms with the patent law as it is developed, and this will be one of the greatest tribunals in the world. They will go back to their circuits at the end of their terms, and they will be trained patent judges, not merely because they have read books and have learned from books the law and the way in which the law should be applied, but trained in the sense that they have been for six years in this tribunal, and they will go back each to his own part of the country saturated with the instinct and the substance of a uniform patent law from participation in its development. Then we shall have what we have not got to-day, a uniform patent law throughout the whole country.

I never have heard one single reason advanced by anybody that seemed worthy of consideration against this court of patent appeals. I have heard lawyers say it is more convenient to go to Boston or Chicago or Cincinnati than to come to Washington. They say that, too, about the Supreme Court of the United States. But the additional trouble and the small added expense that might be incurred would be nothing as compared with the great principle of having a uniform patent law, uniformly applied, where a decision of the first case will go a long way toward settling the validity and the scope of a patent, and toward determining the acts that will or will not infringe it. That is the thing we want to get, and we need it inexpressibly.

In this bill you will find a suggestion that the chief justice of this court shall be paid a salary of $12,000 and the other judges shall be paid salaries of $11,500 each. This court will be one of the utmost importance, and these Federal judges can not be expected to give up their homes and their surroundings and their environment, where they are contented and happy, unless there is reasonable and proper compensation for the extra burden imposed upon them. It is not like the case of the judges

of the Supreme Court of the United States, who live in Washington all the time; and these judges of the court of patent appeals would be clearly entitled to compensation for this disintegration of their personal convenience and personal affairs. I think that they might come anyway, because there are a substantial number of judges throughout this country who feel as strongly as I do the defects of the present system, because there are nine courts of appeals, when there ought to be one, and they will make sacrifices to come here, but they should not be asked to do that.

That is the point of view from which I have been looking at this court of patent appeals proposition for over 20 years, and I urge you gentlemen of this committee to give it your careful consideration. I have been before a number of committees of Congress on the matter, and I do not think that I have ever found a committee that did not feel that the creation of a court of patent appeals was a matter of vital consequence. The matter simply has not received favorable action from Congress because it has not been properly pushed. It has never had the right of way that a measure must have to get through Congress.

Under the conditions that existed before the great war the importance of the matter, in my opinion, justified its being pushed with the utmost energy through Congress, as a matter of the largest consequence to the industrial prosperity of this country, but now it is a matter of even more serious importance. Our industries, as the committee knows, are in an abnormal condition in many respects, and anything that can be done to stabilize them and make it easy for men to do business should be done. Uncertainties should be eliminated, as far as possible, so that the public and those concerned with industry can figure accurately and intelligently as to the ways in which they are to work, and the lines along which business is to be developed. I do not myself know of many things that are of more importance than this particular proposition, namely, the putting of patent litigation into such shape that a single court of appeals in the first case that is brought will, practically or at least to a very large extent, settle all the questions arising under a particular patent, and settle them for the whole country, thus doing

away with that uncerainty, without that feeling that some other court may take a different view which prevails to-day, and surely will prevail as long as we have nine individual, separate courts of appeals.

Note-Because of lack of space the remarks of Mr. Fish on the proposed review respecting profits and damages (Section 15, bill H. R. 5011), and the interesting discussion with members of the Committee is omitted; but it is expected that the more important matters discussed and the remainder of the statement will be printed in a future number.

LABOR AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

The American Federation of Labor adopted the following resolution at its Atlantic City convention

"WHEREAS, Scientific research and the technical application of results of research form a fundamental basis upon which the development of our industries, manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and others must rest; and

WHEREAS, The productivity of industry is greatly increased by the technical application of the results of scientific research in physics, chemistry, biology, and geology, in engineering and agriculture, and in the related sciences; and the health and well-being not only of the workers but of the whole population as well, are dependent upon advances in medicine and sanitation; so that the value of scientific advancement to the welfare of the nation is many times greater than the cost of the necessary research; and

WHEREAS, The increased productivity of industry resulting from scientific research is a most potent factor in the ever-increasing struggle of the workers to raise their standards of living, and the importance of this factor must steadily increase since there is a limit beyond which the average standard of living of the whole population cannot progress by the usual methods of re-adjustment, which limit can only be raised by research and the utilization of the results of research in industry; and

WHEREAS, There are numerous important and pressing problems of administration and regulation now faced by federal, state, and local governments, the wise solution of which depends upon scientific and technical research; and

WHEREAS, The war has brought home to all the nations engaged in it the overwhelming importance of science and technology to national welfare, whether in war or in peace, and not only is private initiative attempting to organize far-reaching research in these fields on a national scale, but in several countries governmental participation and support of such undertakings are already active; therefore be it

RESOLVED, By the American Federation of Labor in convention assembled, that a broad program of scientific and technical research is of major importance to the national welfare and should be fostered in every way by the Federal Government, and that the activities of the Government itself in such research should be adequately and generously supported in order that the work may be greatly strengthened and extended; and the Secretary of the Federation is instructed to transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, to the President pro tempore of the Senate, and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

RULES 56 TO 67.

G. P. TUCKER, Law Examiner.
The Model.

Rule 56. A model will be required or admitted as a part of the application only when on examination of the case in its regular order the primary examiner shall find it to be necessary or useful. In such case, if a model has not been furnished, the examiner shall notify the applicant of such requirement, which will constitute an official action in the case. When a model has been received in compliance with the official requirement, the date of its filing shall be entered on the file wrapper. Models not required nor admitted will be returned to the applicants. When a model is required, the examination may be suspended until it shall have been filed.

Rule 57. The model must clearly exhibit every feature of the machine which forms the subject of a claim of invention, but should not include other matter than that covered by the actual invention or improvement, unless it be necessary to the exhibition of the invention in a working model.

Rule 58. The model must be neatly and substantially made of durable material, metal being deemed preferable; but when the material forms an essential feature of the invention, the model should be constructed of that material.