this is the best course to pursue. Change of some kind clearly appears to be necessary here. But the policy of the Patent Office with respect to legal training goes far beyond what has been discussed above. Promotion to a higher grade in the Patent Office is dependent upon many factors, called extra credit items. An example of this is an extra credit rating when an examiner can demonstrate that he has the knowledge, and applies it in the examination of cases, equivalent to that obtainable only by advanced training in technology, e.g., a masters degree, etc. What is the status of a law degree in the promotion scheme of the Patent Office? It is worth exactly nothing. Such a policy serves only to drive out of the Patent Office those with extremely desirable training, and encourages only those to stay who are obviously not the best qualified to be primary examiners. 2. Technological training In foreign patent offices it is not at all unusual to find that they require that an examiner have had previous experience in the technical field in which he desires to examine patent applications. In the U.S. Patent Office the situation is quite the reverse. It is not merely that the U.S. Patent Office does not have any such requirement as stated above. Rather, it is not unusual to find that many primary examiners, and especially supervisory primary examiners, do not even have a scientific or engineering degree in the particular field in which they operate in the Patent Office. Thus, it is far from unusual to find examiners in the chemical arts who have no degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, examiners in metallurgical arts who have had no metallurgical training, etc. The reason that this occurs, especially with respect to supervisory primary examiners, is that they are chosen primarily on the basis of the impressiveness of the production records they have achieved while examining patent applications. Their particular background, i.e., the scientific or engineering degree they possess, is of little or no significance when being considered for promotion. Even if a supervisory primary examiner has an engineering or scientific degree in the proper field, he still seldom has had any previous experience with the particular subject matter of which he is placed in charge. Most supervisory primary examiners come from an entirely different, and, in many cases, totally unrelated art area. But high production must be rewarded. regardless of the consequences. 3. Highly paid but unnecessary personnel The U.S. Patent Office has many highly paid officers in the upper echelon, and, in many cases, it is extremely difficult to ascertain just what useful function they perform. They certainly appear to do nothing to assist the U.S. Patent Office in attaining the goal of issuing patents of the highest possible validity. The author has no desire to point a finger at any particular position in the Patent Office, but the position of Group Director, of which there are presently 14 having salary requirements in the area of $500,000. Is a good example. The Commissioner does delegate to them rendering decisions on various petitions, but this can hardly serve to justify the position. It appears to the author that their primary function is simply to administer the quota system, and with deemphasis of this system it would appear that the position would then be of negligible importance. They certainly could be more usefully employed in various areas in need of assistance such as, for example, the Board of Appeals. At least in this manner they certainly would be more usefully employed in assisting in accomplishing the goal of having the U.S. Patent Office issue patents of greater validity. Of course, this is considered to be only one illustrative way in which they could be of assistance. There are many other possibilities related to patent validity, e.g., conducting educational courses for primary examiners to keep them abreast of the rapidly changing doctrines of patent law, etc. IV. HOW CAN THE PATENT OFFICE BE ASSISTED? In concluding this statement it is considered appropriate to examine in detail how at least some of the provisions of S.1321 could assist the U.S. Patent Office in issuing patents which would stand a far better chance, when involved in a court test, of being adjudged to be valid patents. It is considered to be evident that the main deterrent to the issuance of valid patents by the U.S. Patent Office is the lack of sufficient time in which to do a thorough job of examination. It must be admitted that many of the time-saving but ill-considered practices employed by the U.S. Patent Office are the result of an inexorable pressure, coming from outside the Office, for either maintaining the backlog of unexamined applications at the same level or reducing it. The most obvious procedure is of course (1) to permit more time for the examination of a patent application. Another alternative (2) is a reduction in the number of applications to be examined per year. Finally, (3) every means for enabling an examiner to produce the best possible product without an increase in the time which can be allocated for the examination of each case must be considered. S. 1321 has many provisions that would appear to offer much assistance to the U.S. Patent Office in achieving all three of these objectives. Chapter 12, Section 135 A. Opposition Proceedings S. 1321 offers an extremely desirable form of assistance to the U.S. Patent Office for locating the best prior art, i.e., opposition proceedings. It is very difficult to understand why there can be such an adverse emotional reaction by many to a proposal of this nature. It should be evident that a proceeding of this kind, regardless of its faults, will greatly assist an examiner in obtaining the best possible prior art to be applied without the expenditure of additional time on his part in locating it. A proceeding of this nature will greatly assist an examiner to do the best possible job in the time period allocated for the examination of an application. Whatever the faults of such a system may be, they surely can be mitigated by adequate safeguards. B. Deferred Examination Chapter 18, section 191, 192, 193 The reason why this part of S. 1321 would greatly assist the U.S. Patent Office in issuing more valid patents is based on the fact that under present practice after the payment of the initial filing fee, each application is entitled to a full examination procedure. Most applications are maintained until final rejection thereof. This entire practice is based on a very faulty premise. Is it not more reasonable to assume that if an applicant must pay an additional fee for each stage in a full examination, not all applications will have to be completely examined. This part of S. 1321 is based on the premise that requests for full examination will not be made in all applications filed for financial or other reasons. Therefore, if a smaller number of applications is to be examined per year, i.e., the case load on the U.S. Patent Office is decreased, it will then be possible to do a more thorough job on those applications which are fully examined. Thereby patents will be issued which have a better chance of being adjudged valid. Many have advanced the argument that these provisions of S. 1321 will not have the desired effect of avoiding full examination of all applications, i.e., requests for full examination will be received in all applications filed. In order to attain the objectives of this portion of S. 1321 it could be modified so as to incorporate therein a provision for the prompt issuance of a brief patentability report, perhaps incorporated in the PO-1142 form previously referred to. This would not be too time consuming on the part of examiners, and conceivably it could result in the abandonment of many applications without the expenditure of the time required by the full examination procedure. Chapter 4, section 41 C. Maintenance Fecs This part of S. 1321 may have a very great effect on the thoroughness with which a patent application may be examined. Its purpose is quite obviously to tap a source of fees which the U.S. Patent Office at present does not have, and which will be collected from those best able to pay for it, i.e., those who find an issued patent to be profitable. With an increased income the U.S. Patent Office could conceivably be expanded, and with more examiners acting on the same caseload the result would be that an examiner could spend more time on each application which he examines. Another great benefit accruing from increased funds could be a thorough overhaul of the manual classification system, resulting in better searches of the prior art in a shorter time. 23-932 O 74-30 D. Independent Agency Status Chapter 1, section 2 This part of S. 1321 proposes conversion of the U.S. Patent Office to an independent agency. In view of the fact that the U.S. Patent Office clearly performs a quasi-judicial function, and that most, if not all, of other U.S. agencies performing a quasi-judicial function have independent status, the continuance thereof under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce can only be viewed with amazement. The reason for conferring independent status on any agency performing a quasi-judicial function is apparent. In the same manner as with respect to any judge, those officers of the U.S. Government performing quasi-judicial functions must be free to perform them without being subject to political or any other kind of pressure. If the U.S. Patent Office is accorded independent agency status, then perhaps the officials thereof will not feel compelled to resort to the various practices and procedures referred to above which make for an impressive production record, but which hardly serve to produce quality patents able to stand up to a court scrutiny of their validity. Chapter 1, Section 3(d) E. Public Counsel This section is devoted to establishing an officer, who is like the present Assistant Commissioner for Appeals, Legislation and Trademarks, but in addition has been given many new powers, such as, for example, the power to subpoena, the power to institute a discovery proceeding, etc. What is the reason for these provisions? Although it is not too widely known, many patents are invalidated in a court proceeding upon grounds which the U.S. Patent Office at present simply has no good means for reviewing. It cannot do so because of the lack of the powers mentioned above, and at least part of the thought behind this section is to enable the U.S. Patent Office to thoroughly investigate all possible grounds for invalidity before a patent is actually issued. It makes far more sense to conduct the examination of a patent application in this manner, rather than to leave totally unexamined and solely for court review a number of issues which can easily serve to invalidate a patent. For example, under present Rule of Practice 292, it is possible to have a public use proceeding before the issuance of a patent. But the provisions of this Rule are so restrictive that the institution of such a proceeding in the U.S. Patent Office is a virtual rarity. If there were a public counsel as provided for by S. 1321, he could easily use his new powers to thoroughly investigate this issue. This would clearly follow if he had reasonable grounds to believe that public use or sale had occurred which could be a possible ground of invalidity if a patent were to be issued. F. Nonsecrecy for Patent Applications Chapter 11, section 122 This section of S. 1321 should be of great benefit to the U.S. Patent Office because it will completely obviate the necessity (imaginary or not) to attain either allowance or abandonment of a patent application before the termination of an eighteen month period from the date of filing thereof. The reason for this policy has been referred to above, i.e., ratification of the PCT under existing law, with the consequent dilution and degradation of the examination of applications which must necessarily ensue when following a policy as shortsighted as this one. Section 122 requires publication of a pending application before the date of the first examination thereof; this, of course, permits publication within 18 months of the filing date, which is in accordance with the PCT. G. Other Pertinent Sections of S. 1321 In order to shorten this statement brief reference is made below to various other portions of S. 1321 which, in the opinion of the author, would materially assist the Patent Office in issuing patents of the highest possible validity. As to the examination procedure itself note the following. Chapter 12, Section 131(b) (1) Would require an applicant to submit to the Patent Office all prior art considered in connection with the application for patent, and (2) Would require an explanation as to why the claims presented in the application are considered to be patentable over this prior art. The above matter relates of course to the hotly debated subject which can be summed up as the patentability brief. Chapters 12, Section 132(c), Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) (1) Would require a primary examiner to prepare all of his decisions in the usual manner found acceptable by a court of law, i.e., findings of fact and conclusions of law, so that the reasons for his decision are apparent and can be subjected to a rational process of review, and (2) would require a narrative report of all meetings between an examiner and an applicant or his representatives. The reason for the first of these provisions is that at present an examiner need not state in the record why he allowed an application to become a patent, and trying to determine his reason therefor is at best a guessing game. This hardly can lead to a rational review of his decision. The reason for the second provision is of course subsidiary to the first, i.e., to provide a complete record of everything which transpired in the prosecution of a case and to avoid guessing games. Chapter 13, section 115(a), Subsections (1), (2) and (3) (1) Would require applicants and their attorneys, after notice of allowance, to affirm that they are not aware of any more pertinent art than that considered by the Patent Office in its examination of an application, and (2) Would further require them to affirm that they are not aware of any public use bar to patentability, or any other material information which would adversely affect the issuance of a patent. The reason for these provisions is in the interest of objectivity. Before an application is actually subjected to an examination procedure it would be very difficult to ascertain exactly what prior art, etc., is really material, but it certainly is not as difficult to do so once the Patent Office has, so to speak, put its best foot forward. The following sections would focus attention on the problems relating to the validity of issued patents, and what recommendations could be made with the purpose of improving said validity. Chapter 1, section 9 This would require an evaluation by the Commissioner of Patents of the overall quality of the patents issued (including court decisions related to the validity and enforcement of patents). Chapter 1, section 10 This would require an Advisory Council on the Patent System to study and appraise the methods and operations of the U.S. Patent Office including the quality of U.S. patents. The purpose of these provisions is to require the Patent Office to be aware of the quality of its product, which has been grossly neglected in the past. To assist the Patent Office in shortening the time required for searching the prior art the following provisions are of interest. Chapter 1, section 6(c) This would require by statute not only that the Commissioner of Patents revise the manual classification system as required, but also would make mandatory the incorporation therein of both foreign patents and all literature references (which was not previously required). Chapter 1, section 6(e) This would provide statutory support for all efforts designed to facilitate searching by the U.S. Patent Office by whatever assistance mechanization of searching could afford. Both of these provisions are intended to attain the objective of cutting down search time, thereby permitting the time saved to be more profitably employed in the actual examination process so that patents of greater validity can be issued. V. CONCLUSION In conclusion, it appears pertinent to point out that the U.S. Patent Office has been in the business of examining patent examinations since 1836, and therefore has 138 years of experience behind it. If one believes that the U.S. Patent Office today is failing to discharge its function of examining patent applications in a satisfactory manner, then the remedy is not, as many would appear to assume, to simply discard all of this accumulated experience. What clearly must be done is to modify the present examination system in such a manner that the U.S. Patent Office will at least be in a position in which it has a fighting chance to discharge its obligations in a satisfactory manner. If after such changes are made it still fails to discharge its obligations in a satisfactory manner, then perhaps it would be appropriate to consider its demise. Exhibit A UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE-3,464,816, PATENTED SEPT. 2, 1969 3,464,816 ALUMINUM MASTER ALLOYS Richard Hampton Biddulph, Surrey, England, assignor to United States Borax & Chemical Corporation, Los Angeles, Calif. No Drawing. Filed Feb. 25, 1966, Ser. No. 529,941 Claims priority, application Great Britain, Mar. 4, 1965, U.S. CL. 75-135 9,279/65 Int. Cl. C22c 21/00 ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE 9 CLAIMS Aluminum master alloys, containing finely divided transition metal boride dispersed throughout the aluminum, are prepared by forming a molten mixture of aluminum, a transition metal boride and a flux and cooling the molten mixture. The flux is an inorganic flouride which assists in the wetting of the boride with the aluminum. This invention relates to aluminum alloys containing a finely divided metal boride, and to the preparation of said alloys useful in the production of fine grain aluminum. It is known that the presence of up to about 100 p.p.m. by weight of a metallic boride having a hexagonal structure, such as the transition metal borides, confers a fine grain structure on cast aluminum, which is of great importance when the aluminum is to be rolled into sheet or foil. In general, these borides should be used in the form of fine powders as their effectiveness depends upon the number of particles present; and moreover, large particle are abrasive and lead to inhomogeneity. In practice, it is virtually impossible to add the requisite very small quantity of a finely divided boride to molten aluminum without the former being oxidized during the addition, and rendered ineffective as a grain refining agent. To overcome this difficulty it is customary to prepare a master alloy of |