the country to assist the Patent Office in identifying its problems and needs. Indeed, they did! The response from the bar was overwhelming. It was factual, and right to the point. It was enlightening, if embarrassing.

But the call to action was clear and loud. And in response, a number of special programs were initiated.

For example, we established a Customer Relations Center to assist the public in obtaining copies of patents and other documents previously ordered and not received. Many positive comments-such as, "It's the best thing that ever happened at the Patent Office"-have convinced us that the Center is successfully filling a long-felt need. At the present time, the Center is responding to between three and four hundred requests each day.

To reduce the long delays in obtaining certified copies, we established an "on-the-spot" certifying service which enables the public to obtain immediate certification of copies of file wrappers, patent applications, patents, and selected papers from patented application files. Since we began this service last October, over 2,000 requests have been filled, and the response time reduced to only a few minutes.

The problem of delay in the processing of new applications presented greater difficulties. Prompt, efficient processing of a new application is important not only from the standpoint of advising you that an application has been accepted as complete and given a serial number, but also because it creates a record for each application as it begins its journey through the office. No shortcuts can be taken; and we were forced to address ourselves to the problem of speeding up an operation that was literally tens of thousands of applications in arrears.

Our first action was to create a Parallel Application Branch to process all applications filed after October 27, 1971.

Second, we began using the regular Application Branch to eliminate the backlog.

Third, we started planning to bolster the regular branch so that—with the backlog disposed of (and it almost is)-it could resume, and maintain on a current basis, the regular processing of new applications.

Perhaps one of the most important benefits of these efforts, however, is the way they pointed up the need for better management in the Patent Office. Professional Management

I am speaking here not only of management in general sense, but also in the terms of bringing to bear on Patent Office operations, professional administrative skills and experience.

We took a major step in this direction early in January with the hiring of Bill Merkin as our Assistant Commissioner for Administration. Mr. Merkin was formerly associated with the Census Bureau which, like the Patent Office is also part of the Department of Commerce. He brings to our clerical and administrative operations the capabilities of a professional administrator. developed over more than 20 years. We are very proud and pleased to have him as a member of our team.

He has continued earlier initiatives and instituted important new improvements in our operation. In all of this, I should mention also, we have had full cooperation and assistance from the Department of Commerce, which has in no small measure helped make these efforts successful.

During his 7 weeks with us, Bill Merkin has brought his considerable expertise to bear on-among other things our continuing efforts to speed up the operation of our Mail Room, reduce the time it takes to mail filing receipts for new applications, and restore the printing of patents to a current schedule. Let me amplify :

Less than 6 weeks ago, for example, it took 10 to 15 days to deliver nonfinancial papers from the Mail Room to the Examining Groups. At the present time, these papers are arriving at the Examining Groups within 8 hours of receipt in the MIL Room. If fees are involved, the finance section requires an additional day or two.

When the Parallel Application Branch was established late last year, it took us at least 11-12 weeks to mail filing receipts for new applications. As of yesterday, the Parallel Branch was mailing filing receipts within 6 weeks. By March 31, 1972, all filing receipts will be mailed within 4 weeks.

I need not tell you that not too long ago, newly issuing patents were not available until 6 or 7 weeks after the scheduled date of issue. Our program to restore the printing of newly-issuing patents to a current basis has been given top priority. I can now announce that, as of this past Tuesday, the Patent Office has again achieved a current status with regard to the mailing of grant copies of patents. Moreover, also effective with that issue, copies of patents are also available for sale to the public on the date of issue.

People Orientation

Although I have been emphasizing our efforts to improve operations, especially those service operations which are most visible, I remain deeply concerned with the morale and motivation of the employees of the Patent Office. In point of fact, I have perhaps concentrated even more on the "people problems" than on our operations themselves because, as I have said before, morale and operating efficiency are opposite sides of the same coin.

Although we had many problems when I assumed responsibility for the Office last fall, these have probably been most critical in the "paper-handling" operations of the Patent Office.

For that reason, I began an all-out effort to bring our administrative employees back into the mainstream of Patent Office operations, and to impress upon them the importance of what they do. We are doing all we can to improve communications with these employees; to demonstrate a genuine concern for them as well as for their contributions; and to make them aware that real opportunities for training and advancement do exist. In addition, I think it fair to say that we now have in the Patent Office a more highly sensitized personnel operation which is more responsive to the needs of these employees and correspondingly more effective.

In short, we are striving to build a Patent Office team-with support and participation from every grade level, and every area of the operations of the Office-which is tightly knit, smoothly operating, and mission-oriented. And these efforts will continue-for, in my judgment, such an organization is essential to the success of our operations.

The Patent Examining Operation

These same considerations apply, with equal force, to our Patent Examining Operation. Certainly I have attempted to make the examiners aware of my conviction that this is our most basic and important activity-and one which we must perform well.

At the present, examiners are, on the average, reaching cases for first action in about 101⁄2 months, and overall pendency of applications is only slightly in excess of 28 months. This represents-as against the situation 15 months earlier -reductions of almost 2 months in the pendency-to-first action, and 3 months in the pendency-to-issuance. So we seem to be well on the way to our goal of 18 month average pendency during FY 1975.

It might seem to some that we are shooting for two inconsistent goals: A meaningful examination and the issuance of strong patents on one hand, and on the other, the accomplishment of this process in a short period of time.

I want to emphasize, however, that in our effort to reduce pendency, we do not intend to sacrifice the development of an adequate record of all important issues, or meaningful examination, or justice and fair treatment for the applicant. On the contrary, I believe we can cut down on pendency time without adverse affect on the examination process.

This was one reason, I recently initiated a program to revive the manual classification effort. The aim is to improve the search of patent examiners, without requiring additional time, by providing them with better tools. Obviously, the more complete, up-to-date and thorough the classification of the

materials with which the examiner has to work, the better and quicker will be his search, and the stronger the issuing patent.

There are a number of other steps the Patent Office can take internally to streamline the Patent Examining Operations and speed the processing of patent applications. Several significant steps in this direction have been taken during the past year. For one thing, we developed and began utilizing the "First Action Form." This has significantly reduced the time required to prepare and mail first actions. Though perhaps not fully accepted by everyone, I think it fair to say that the form has proved successful, and that-modified in light of suggestions and comments we have received-we do intend to continue its use.

In another area, the time required for the post-examination processing of applications (which involves all operations after allowance, including the actual printing of a patent) has been reduced by almost 2 months since last July.

As these examples illustrate, such improvements will permit reduction of pendency time without entailing any sacrifice of professional effort placed on these applications by examiners.

Actions to Reduce Fraud

As most of your would quickly agree, fraud and inequitable conduct in patent prosecution is today a very live subject. Increasingly, "fraud on the Patent Office" is being alleged as a defense in litigation. Many courts are holding patents invalid or unenforceable on such grounds. This is a matter of concern to us all, and in the Office we have been giving thought to what can be done which might be helpful.

In one type of situation, the challenger contends that the patentee misled the Patent Office by failing to call attention to a prior use or prior art.

In another, but similar situation an applicant presents data or other evidence tending to support patentability, but fails to call attention to additional data which do not help his case and may run counter to it. Even if the omis sion is not specifically intended to deceive, the patent may be held unenforceable on the ground that the patentee's conduct was lacking in candor (as witness the recent Third Circuit decision in Montsanto V. Rohm & Haas).

We feel this is an area where the Patent Office, can be of help. Rule 132, as you know, provides for the submissions of affidavits to overcome rejections. We contemplate amending that rule, to require the affiant to state, in effect, that no facts, data or test results are known which are inconsistent with those in the affidavit or which would tend to give a different impression from that conveyed by the affidavit. A similar statement would also be required in cases in which the specification refers to test results.

The end result of such proposed change, we hope, will be a strengthening of the presumption of validity.

To the same general end, we are also considering some liberalization of our policy regarding examiners testifying in cases where a question of fraud before the Patent Office is an issue in litigation.

The Trademark Examining Operation

We are quite enthusiastic about the changes taking place on the trademark side of the office, but before I discuss these changes, I would like to stress one general observation: We are making progress in eliminating from Patent Office thinking the "rumble seat" attitude toward our trademark functions.

The principal vehicle which has been used to move trademarks back up to share the front seat has been the creation of a Public Advisory Committee on Trademark Affairs. Its mission has been to review the trademark problems of the office from the standpoint of the public interest, and to recommend solutions. Its Chairman is a Pennsylvanian, a good frend of long standing-Frank Foote of Mine Safety Appliances. This Committee has done a great deal of good in developing a more direct approach to the diagnosis and solution of

trademark problems in the Patent Office. We will continue on this course of modernization and improvement.

I would like to illustrate what is being done in response to the recommendations of this committee. The most recent change to be fully implemented was a reorganization in the section of the Trademark Examining Operations in which trademark applications receive initial processing. Essentially, those changes were directed to emphasize those functions which were most important from the standpoint of public needs. Without going into detail, suffice it to say, that whereas several months ago the public search file was more than 3 months behind as to data concerning newly-filed applications, this delay has now been reduced to 4 weeks. Our eventual goal is to deliver data to the Public Search Room within 10 days of the receipt of new applications.

In another important area-communication between the office and the applicant-we are introducing a number of new techniques. At present, our emphasis is on first actions and the techniques now in use, or in active stages of development, include the use of form paragraphs, transcribed by mechanicallyaided typewriters; the use of check-off forms, where feasible; and the preaddressing of the forms used in first action letters. In introducing these improvements, our goal is to increase efficiency without sacrificing substance. In order to achieve the best possible results we will, of course, need your cooperation, constructive criticism and suggestions.

There are just two examples of our current activity. The Committee made some 64 recommendations, and we have implemented, or are engaged in implementing, more than 75 percent of them. Furthermore, this Committee is continuing to advise us on matters not covered in the original report, and it will, I hope, continue to do so.

Legislation

As I am sure this Association recognizes, we remain vitally interested in sound patent revision legislation, including the Scott Amendments. And certainly we share your concern over the recent events culminating in the issuance of the Committee Print of S.643. More than ever, we are convinced that a stabilization and clarification of the licensable nature of the patent grant is as vital to the nation's economy and and technological growth as it was when the Department of Commerce supported such amendments before the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights last May. Moreover, we share your concern over the amendments to the Committee Print which, among other things, would require an attorney oath, would require a patentability brief without adequate protection for patent applicants, and would permit the importation into the United States of products made abroad by processes patented in this country. I can assure you that we will continue to press for a sound patent law revision, including the substance of the Scott Amendments. International

As you know, it has been almost 2 years since the negotiation and signing of the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Since that time, we have been working with the associations such as your own, to develop the posture this country should take with regard to ratification of the Treaty. We intend to ratify the PCT and have already drafted in preliminary form the necessary legislation. And I should emphasize that our position on the Treaty is fully consistent with that expressed by the patent community.

We are quite optimistic about the advent of the PCT. We believe it will benefit the U.S. business community, and also assist our examiners to perform more thorough and complete patent searches of applications in the United States.

Equally important to the U.S. businessman is our effort to secure an acceptable Trademark Registration Treaty. This was launched by a resolution by the United States to the Executive Committee of the Paris Union in October, 1970, tration system in which countries not now party to the Madrid Agreement might participate.

On May 2 of this year there will be convened in Geneva, Switzerland, a Committee of Experts to consider a revised draft of this Treaty.

This upcomong May meeting-the third of a series-is most important, since the draft treaty is now taking shape to an extent that prompt and serious examination of its provisions by interested trademark owners and associations in the United States is essential.

As you are aware, the most recent draft of the Trademark Registration Treaty was released by the World Intellectual Property Organization on January 31, 1972, and was published in the February 22nd issue of the Official Gazette. Some of the main features of the Treaty in its present form are:

1. Securing international registration, effective in designated member countries, by filing a single international application directly with WIPO. 2. Correspondingly simplified renewal, by filing a single renewal application with WIPO.

3. Notwithstanding these procedural benefits substantive matters would continue to be governed by the national law of the designated countries. While several issues remain to be resolved, we believe that the Trademark Registration Treaty could result in significant advantages to American businessmen. We are continuing to work with a number of interested associations to obtain their comments on the draft treaty for the May Committee of Experts. The culmination of the present efforts will be a diplomatic conference scheduled to be helf in Vienna, Austria, in May and June of 1973.

The Patent System and the Future

It must be clear to you that we have a broad-based concern for improving the patent system. This has its roots in the conviction that the Patent System is of vital importance, and that we will rely more, rather than less, on the incentives it affords as we move ahead into the Seventies.

In his recent State of the Union Address, President Nixon, recognized that American ingenuity has enjoyed a wide International reputation and has contributed greatly to our domestic prosperity and our international strength. He further emphasized that we should be doing more to apply our scientific and technological genius directly to domestic opportunities. In the coming year, an all out effort will be made to focus our research and development resources on projects where an extra effort is most likely to produce a breakthrough, and where the breakthrough is most likely to make a difference in our lives.

I need hardly remind this audience of the central role that the patent system has played in stimulating and making practically effective the American ingenuity of which the President spoke. In this day of competitive international challenge, it is incumbent upon us, both in Government and the private sector, to do all within our power, to strengthen the Patent System in order that it may play in fullest measure its proper role in revitalizing and strengthening the American economy. The President called upon the patent system to stimulate the application of American technological genius to the problems of the environment, and we can be sure that the President also intends that the incentives of the patent system be similarly applied to the transfer of technol ogy from the public to the private sector which he has stressed as increasingly important.

We have learned through experience how the growth of industry and competition in this country has been fostered by the patent system. We have learned, too, how potent a force in international commerce American Trademarks can be.

We recognize that our ability to compete internationally rests in no small degree upon the strength of patent incentives in this country and the effective protection of our technology and trademarks abroad.

I pledge to you today that my efforts, and those of our entire Patent Office team, will be dedicated to doing all in our power to accomplish the President's goals through the strengthening of our patent and trademark systems.