WARLEY PARROTT
(Continued from page 3)
an inventor to act promptly
once he has made an invention
and to file an application for the
same in the Patent Office before
the expiration of one year from
the time the invention was pub
lished or publicly used. If he
does not do so and the same in
vention is disclosed through a
publication, then the inventor
will lose his rights to a patent
even though he may have ac
tually made the invention first.
"Besides the requirement of
newness, that is, distinction ov
er all prior patents and publi
cation as we have just consid
ered, the invention to be patent-
able must also be useful. This
means that it is capable of use
or operation and is not just an
idea which in actual use would
be impractical. The degree of
usefulness is immaterial so long
as the invention nas not been
previously disclosed. In some
cases which involve questions
of patentability over prior dis
closures the degree of useful
ness may become significant;
for example, if it can be shown
that the invention although dis
closed in principal before has
answered a long felt commer
cial need and has enjoyed sub
stantial commercial success, such
factors are sometimes considered
in weighing and determining
the question of patentability.
"One of the questions which
is very commonly asked of a
patent lawyer by an applicant
for a patent is wether he has
the right to bring suit against an
infringer before his patent issues
and the answer is unequivocably
"No.” The right to sue for in
fringement matures only with
issuance of the patent and dam
ages collectable for infringe
ment in most all cases cannot cov
er infringing operations prior to
issuance of the patent. This
provision of the law might
sometimes work a hardship on
^ln inventor whose idea has
been imitated and large profits
made before he can obtain iss
uance of his patent. There is a
relief for this, however, in that
the Patent Office will upon a
verified showing of infringe
ment examine the patent app
lication in question forthwith
and issue the patent if the
the invention proves patentable.
"You may be interested in
a few brief comments about
the United States Patent Office
in Washington where all app
lications for patents are filed
and prosecuted. Prior to 1925
the Patent Office was a part
of the Department of the In
terior but in 1925 it was
transferred to the Depart
ment of Commerce by Executive
Order of President^Coclidge and
it has remained under the
Department of Commerce’s
jurisdiction since that time. The
Head of the Patent Office is
the Commissioner of Patents
who administers all activities of
the Patent Office. The primary
function of the Patent Office is,
of course, to examine applica
tions for patent filed by inven
tors and determine whether the
invention in question is patent-
able over the related prior art
patents which have previously
been granted. This is done by a
corps of EXAMINERS, about
800 in number at the present
time. There are at present 69
patent divisions, a trademark
division, and a design patent
division, each of which is head
ed by a Chief Examiner and
under him a number of ass
istant Examiners. These Examin
ers are technically trained men
and usually study law at one of
the law schools in Washington.
Each division examines inven
tions of a certain class of sub
ject matter. For example, carbon
chemistry is in Division 6, Plas
tics in Division 64, Paper
Manufacturer in Division 56,
Textile Machinery in Division
21, etc.
"In pre-war times the Exam
ining Corps could keep fairly
up to date with their examina
tion of patent applications, that
is, within a few months’ time.
Since the war there has been a
tremendous upsurge of patent
activity. In 1946 there were fil
ed 92,000 patent applications
and only 27,000 patents issued.
"In our hurry and scurry of
modern times, we seem to have
lost the opportunity of art for
the use of levity in our patent
system but this was not so in the
early days. Someone in the
Chemists Club in New York
City recently made a collection
of rather amusing patents which
were issued along about 1860 to
1900. I have abstracts of a few
of those here and believe they
would prove interesting, if not
surprising, to you.
"One of these is for a time-
alarm bed. It is U. S. patent No.
479307 issued to G. Q. Seaman.
Its specification reads in part
as follows: 'The occupant of the
bed need not have any concern
about being awakened, as he
may sleep calmly on without
listening for the alarm; but at
the time at which the alarm is
set the downward movement of
the lever allows the leaf to
swing inward, and the occupant
is spilled upon the floor.’
"Another one for a hair tonic
is: F. W. E. Muller, U. S. patent
No. 939,431, Nov. 9, 1909. It
specifies as follows: 'A hair
tonic consisting of pure water
ten per cent, an extract of ripe
black currants, twenty-five per
cent, granulated sugar five per
cent, best corn whiskey forty
per cent, and port wine twenty
per cent, substantially as de
scribed’.”
While these are of interest I
am sure they are not typical of
the patents of our day and time
and the hard work which lies
behind most of them. Thomas
A. Edison, who was one of the
most prolific inventors of all
times, once said and I quote:
"Restlessness and discontent
are the first necessities of
progress. I never did anything
worth doing by accident, nor
did any of my inventions come
by accident.”
32