Lapas attēli

opportunity to evaluate new methods of what has been developed in other major industrial countries, plus the continued unsatisfactory or relative unsatisfactory quality of the work product of the Patent Office.

We are gratful that you and your associates would do what politicians are very reluctant to do, and that is to ever admit that they could take a new look at anything.

Dr. Nixox. Thank you.

Senator HART. Having said that, and inasmuch as we have asked each spokesman for an organization who has testified to identify their membership and the way the position they have taken is developed, and to what extent their position has been reviewed, would you describe your committee?

Dr. Nixon. It is a continuing committee, so that they are continually looking at legislation that is proposed, not only this legislation but for instance the Moss bill and other bills. This is a very important fuction, we feel, of the society, to be sure that our members understand the effect of legislation which is proposed and try to make sure that it serves all of the community in the best manner.

Senator Hart. Well, your society's membership is very broad?
Dr. Nixox. Right.

Senator Hart. Would it be possible for you to provide for our record the names and affiliations of your Board members ?

Dr. Nixos. Oh yes.

Senator HART. And would that also be possible with respect to the membership of the committee you mentioned, the Committee on Patent Matters and Related Legislation?

Dr. Nixox. Yes.

Senator Hart. And now on page and I read this not in the nature of a question but to underscore it.

It is obvious that many patents of doubtful merit are being granted by the United States Patent Office. We take note, however, of the finding by Professor Irving Kayton of the George Washington University National Law Center, that, when the courts considered no prior art other than that known to the Patent Office during examination of the patent application, 75% of litigated patents are upheld. While different conclusions may be drawn from this striking fact, we prefer to take it at face value.

And, parenthetically, I do too.

If the Patent Office had the manpower and resources to bring the totality of existing art into consideration during examination, we would expect that the great majority of issued patents could withstand challenge in the courts, and confidence in the patent system would be improved immeasurably.

Now, I would paraphrase that this way. If all of the relevant facts are before a Patent Office Examiner and he has a reasonable time to consider them, he will come up with the correct answer?

Dr. Nixox. Yes, I think that is correct.

Senator Hart. That really is what we mean when we talk about an effort at patent reform.

Dr. NIXON. Yes.

Senator Hart. That is really what we mean. That is really the focus and the basic purpose of the legislative effort reflected in Senator Modellings here.


You do comment on Patent Office fees. For our record, would you give us your reaction to a system of nominal filing and issue fees?

Dr. Nixon. Well, I think we are in favor of that, that is of those sort of fees, Senator. We are not questioning that at all.

Senator HART. Well let me give you the four elements and ask your reaction which we would like. It may make it easier and more understandable if we have that in the record: a system of nominal filing and issue fees; maintenance fees, every 3 years, starting in the fifth year at a rate decided by the Patent Office Commissioner designed to recoup the 65 to 75 percent of the Patent Office costs; with power vested in the Commissioner to grant special exemptions to individuals and small businessmen and so on. Now, have you any feeling as to that matter?

Dr. Nixon. Well, just offhand, Senator, it sounds like a better proposal than what is here present. The foreign countries do have a maintenance fee system but they are much more modest than what is proposed here, which would total something over $100,000 for a complete patent that ran through to exhaustion. And the general principle we support is that the government try to recover a substantial proportion of the Patent Office costs, Senator.

Senator HART. Mr. Brennan?
Mr. BRENNAN. No questions.
Senator HART. Mr. Nash ?
Mr. Nash. No questions.

Senator Hart. Doctor, before you leave, do any of your colleagues care to make any comments or give any further remarks?

Dr. Nixon. Well, they are very modest people, but they might be persuaded to.

Dr. Cairns. The only thing I might say, since I have testified here before relative to the prior legislation, Senator, of course the bill was quite different when we testified in 1968 so naturally our comments and our views would be differentiatable. And this general comment here, Senator, did not indicate too significant a reversal except perhaps on the question of deferred examination. We are still Very anxious to see a high quality job done and to support the Patent Office in any way that we can.

Senator Hart. Thank you, Doctor. It was indeed the position on deferred examination that I had particularly in mind when I made the comment.

Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Dr. Nixon. Thank you.

[The material requested earlier appears as follows:]



Dr. Herman S. Bloch (Chairman)
Associate Director of Research
L'niversal Oil Products
Dr. William J. Bailey
Research Professor
Department of Chemistry
University of Maryland
Dr. David S. Breslow
Senior Research Associate
New Enterprise Research Division
Hercules Research Center
Hercules Inc.
Dr. Bryce Crawford, Jr.
Professor, Department of Chemistry
Molecular Spectroscopy Laboratory
University of Minnesota
Dr. Bernard S. Friedman (Retired)
Dr. Mary L. Good
Professor, Department of Chemistry
Louisiana State l'niversity
Dr. Henry A. Hill, President
Riverside Research Laboratory
Ward Hill Industrial Center
Dr. Pauline Newman
Director, Patent & Licensing

FMC Corporation

Dr. Alan C. Nixon
Dr. Robert W. Parry
Professor, Department of Chemistry
University of Utah
Dr. John C. Sheehan
Professor, Department of Chemistry
Massachusetts Institute of Technologs
Dr. Gardner W. Stacy
Professor, Department of Chemistry
Washington State University
Dr. B. R. Stanerson
National Director
Scientific Research Society of

America, Inc.
Dr. Max Tishler
University Professor of the Sciences
Department of Chemistry
Wesleyan University
Mr. Emerson Venable
Independent Consultant
Dr. Robert W. Cairns
Executive Director
American Chemical Society
Mr. Arthur B. Hanson
General Counsel
Hanson, O'Brien, Birney, Stickle,

and Butler



Dr. John T. Maynard (Chairman)
Head, Patent Division
Elastomer Chemicals Department
Dr. Michael G. Berkman
Patent ('onsultant
Kegan, Kegan & Berkman
Dr. Ilerman S. Bloch (ex officio)
Associate Director of Research
l'niversal Oil Products
Mr. Edward J. Brenner
Patent Attorney
Brenner & Wray
Dr. Daryle H. Busch
Professor, Department of Chemistry
The Ohio State University
Mr. Edwin B. Cave
Patent Attorney Director
Bell Laboratories
Dr. Ben J. Luberoff
Editor, ('hemical Technology
Dr. Willard Marcy
Vice President-Patents
Research Corporation

Dr. Frederick C. Nachod
Chemical Liaison Staff Director
Sterling-Winthrop Research Institute
Dr. Pauline Newman
Director, Patent & Licensing

FMC Corporation
Di W

D, Viederhauser Director of Pioneering Research Spring House Laboratory Rohm & Haas Research Laboratory Dr. Alan C. Nixon (ex officio) Dr. Alice (). Robertson Patent Attorney Johnson & Johnson Mr. John P. Sutton Attorney Limbach, Limbach & Sutton

STAFF LIAISON, ACS Dr. Stephen T. Quigley Director, Department of Chemistry

and Public Affairs

[ocr errors]

Senator I LART. Mr. Brennan.
Mr. BRENNAN. The next witness is Mr. Stanley Clark.

Senator Hart. Mr. Clark, would you identify yourself for the record ?


Mr. CLARK. My name is Stanley Clark and I am presently Patent ('ounsel for the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., but I am expressing my own personal views here. I am not speaking for the company.

Senator Hart. I assume you wish to have your statement printed in full in the record ?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, I have submitted that statement and would like it to be printed in full in the record.

Senator Hart. It will be at the appropriate place.

Mr. Clark. I had occasion to testify 2 years go in connection with the proposed Anti-Trust and Licensing Provisions known as the Scott Amendments and in the course of my testimony I had a colloquy with Senator McClellan in response to a question that he had asked and that question has come up here repeatedly; namely, why there seems to be a different standard of invention between the courts and the Patent Office and why are 70 percent or so of the patents declared invalid when they reach the courts. If I may, Senator, I would like to read just a portion of that colloquy from pages 325 and 326 of my testimony. It won't take very long and I apologize for reading it.

Mr. CLARK. *** The inventor, more particularly his patent counsel, has the time and the opportunity and the incentive far beyond the overworked patent examiner does not have; and when you add all this together it is an unfair struggle and this is why I would lend support to the Department of Justice position that the oath of the inventor ought to be restored to the proposed patent bill and that the burden should be upon the applicant to be fully candid with the Patent Office.

Senator MCCLELLAN. You think the law does not require that now?
Mr. CLARK, I don't think it does now, no, sir.

Senator McCLELLAN. If it is intended to it has a lot of loopholes in it, is that currert?

Mr. CLARK. That is correct. I would suggest that the burden also be placed not only upon the inventor but upon the lawyer that is representing him. At present the burden is only upon the inventor.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Why upon the lawyer?

Mr. CLARK, Because often the lawyer knows more about the prior art and is the only contact with the Patent Office. Once the inventor signs an oath, which he doesn't understand, to a patent application which he usually can't interpret, then he is through with the whole procedure and you never hear from him again.

Senator McC'LELLAN. But if the applicant testifies or signs a false oath knowing it is false, maybe his attorney doesn't know that.

Jr. CLARK. That may be true. That may be true.

Senator McCLELLAN. I don't think the attorney should be held responsible for that.

Mr. Clark. No; but I think perhaps the attorney ought to be required on his own to make a full statement of the prior art as he knows it to the Patent Office.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, you would put a burden on the attorney not to rely upon the information supplied him by his client?

Jr. CLARK, I would say if that is the only information he has he is entitled to rely upon it, but if an attorney has additional information, which he often has, sometimes these attorneys are as expert as the inventors in the art and as knowledgeable as the inventor in the art, he should disclose that information to the Patent Office.

Senator MCCLELLAN. If he has additional information maybe he should rely on it or shouldn't, I don't know. But I wonder how far we are going and I am

not arguing against it at the moment, I am just trying to clarify what you are recommending with respect to placing an additional burden upon attorners. Attorneys should not be permitted to permit fraud or to mislead, willfully mislead the court or in this instance the Patent Office, but I know that attorness are often misled by their clients and how much a burden you put upon then or you are attempting to put upon them, they have to check the veracity and reliability of their own clients. Would you go that much farther now?

Mr. CLARK. I am not suggesting that. I am saying he is entitled to rely upon what his client tells him. I suggest if he has additional information he should volunteer it himself.

Senator McCLELLAN. Yes; if he has additional information and the client has not submitted it he shouldn't withhold that from the Patent Office.

Mr. CLARK. That is correct.
Senator McC'LELLAN. That is what you are saying?
Mr. CLARK. Yes.

Senator McCLELLAN. I think that is not unreasonable at all. It might be proper.

Now the reason why I bring that before the Senators this morn. ing is because several questions have been asked, all of which bear upon what I was suggesting 2 years ago and that is that the burden of the Patent Office will be lightened and the effectiveness of the Patent Office will be markedly improved if there is a fair and candid communication between the Patent Office and the applicants and the applicants' attorneys. I think that is in the public interest because stronger and better patents will issue and there will be fewer of them, I hope, declared invalid by the courts.

Let me say that this bill, S. 1321 seems to be marked by a more express concern for the public interest and to a far greater extent than our present patent law and for that matter than any other patent bill which I have ever seen presented.

I would like to refer to some of those provisions, which are present in 1321, which are in the public interest and I would like to speak a few words in support of them. In doing so I would like to answer some of the questions which have come up in the hearings in the la-t day or 2. To repeat, Senator, what I would like to say is that the applicant has the duty to be fully candid with the Patent Office, and, if he discharges that duty, then the burden on the Patent Office. will, in great part, also be relieved. An examiner will have more time and better patents will issue. And again, all of this is in the public interest.

Let us look at some of these mechanisms which are in 1321 which require and encourage that duty of responsibility and candor to be discharged by the applicant. First of all, I would like to refer to section 115 which provides that there be an oath by the applicant and by the attorney and by the agents acting on behalf of the applicant to lay before the Patent Office the prior art of which they are aware. Well, this is not a new view or a view peculiar to me. In the American Patent Law Association Bulletin for October of 1972. Mr. Rabinow-and I hope that is pronounced properly-he is a successful independent inventor-in that bulletin he made this statement and I quote him: "I think that the patent attorney should telland so on, and so on, in other words, he should help the Patent Office. and he shouldn't play games."

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »