Journal OF THE Patent Office Society Published monthly by the Patent Office Society Office of Publication 3928 New Hampshire Ave., Washington, D. C. EDITORIAL BOARD. E. D. Sewall, Chairman, Publicity Committee. G. P. Tucker, Editor-in-Chief. J. Boyle. E. R. Cole. E. S. Glascock. W. J. Wesseler W. I. Wyman. M. L. Whitney, Business Manager, (Room 57, U. S. Patent Office.) 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. Copyright, 1919, by the Patent Office Society. 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. VOL. II. OCTOBER, 1919. No. 2. EDITORIAL. In a recent newspaper interview, a German army surgeon stated that the only important contribution that had been made to surgery during the war was the CarrelDakin method of wound sterilization. In the early period of the war it was found necessary to amputate wounded members in an extraordinarily large percentage of cases, so bad was the infection. This condition arose from the fact that the ground over which the armies were fighting had been fertilized and cultivated for centuries and was literally loaded with pathogenic bacteria. In an effort to find some satisfactory method of sterilization Dr. Carrel started his investigations on the theory of using some non-irritating bactericide that would be cheap and stable. Dakin, an eminent chemist, was turned to, to provide this material. As a result of his investiga tions he decided on a carefully neutralized sodium hypochlorite solution of a certain concentration. The infected wound is bathed with this solution until a bacterial test shows that disinfection is complete. The solution is applied to the wound by means of small perforated rubber tubes inserted deeply into every corner of it. The wound is then packed with gauze which is kept constantly saturated with the solution. We hope that this recital is interesting from a general informative point of view. The subject,however, is more interesting when we come to consider that this method is not susceptible of reward under our patent laws, although the trivial apparatus which might be used in connection with the method could be patentable. This question seems to have been settled in the case of Morton vs. The New York Eye Infirmary (1862), 5 Blatch. 116, 2 Fisher, 320 (329). The patent in issue in that case covered the epochmaking discovery of the use of ether as an anaesthetic in surgical operations. Congress at one time offered Morton $100,000 for his patent which he refused. The ground for holding the patent invalid was that Congress had never passed any law conferring the benefits of the patent system on discoveries of that character. In other words, it was not an "art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." We do not mean to imply that the discoverers of the present method have even sought to patent it. We do know that patents have been granted on the apparatus for carrying out that method. To sum up the situation no incentive or reward is offered by our laws in such cases to the discoverer of the main plan but only to the inventor of the ancillary features. This situation is thus pointed out because it seems to be one of the many illogical features of the patent laws which ought at some time to be taken up and considered for the purpose of improving generally the effectiveness of the patent system. Why should the only incentive to invent be confined strictly to the field of industry? The special case selected is only a striking example of an illogical situation of which other examples might be given. Congress has the power to remedy that situation. The only limitation of its powers in this field is the constitutional provision that the patent shall be granted to the inventor for his own. invention and for a limited period of time. SILAS HENRY HODGES, Commissioner of Patents 1852-1853. In the biography of the fourth Commissioner of Patents, Herringshaw's American Biography has this brief chronicle: Silas Henry Hodges, Lawyer, was born January 12, 1804 at Claredon, Vermont. From 1845-1850 he was Auditor of Accounts of Vermont. He was appointed Commissioner of Patents in 1852 by President Fillmore. From 1861 to 1875 he was an Examiner-in-chief in the U. S. Patent Office. He died in Washington, D. C., April 21, 1875. The examiners under Mr. Hodges were Henry B. Renwick, having the classes of metallurgy, steam and gas engines, navigation, civil engineering and fire arms; L. D. Gale, chemistry and agriculture; J. H. Lane, mathematical, philosophical and optical instruments, lever, screw and other mechanical powers, stone and clay and glass manufacture, leather boots and shoes, weaving, apparel; Henry Baldwin, calorifics, light, heat and ventilation, fine arts, medicine, surgery, dentistry, designs; F. Southgate Smith, Hydraulics and pneumatics, lumber, fibrous and textile manufactures and machinery; George C. Schaeffer, land conveyance, mills. This Commissioner also had to contend with the difficulty of insufficient help. In his report dated February 28, 1853, are found the following statements. "Resignations of examiners contributed to augment the number of cases on hand. Strong inducement must be held out to these officers to retain their posts." "More room, better facilities for transacting business, and more examiners are needed. The office has not been wanting in representing the evil to those who had it in their power to repair it and did it not." He urged the separation of the Patent Office from the Interior Department. "Many considerations require that the post of Commissioner of Patents should be a permanent one. It seems plain that the mischief resulting from the present position of the office (connected with the Department of the Interior) demands a change and the elevation of this into an independent bureau." Referring to the increase in business of the Patent Office from year to year, he remarks-"Some find it difficult to conceive that this flood of discoveries and improve |