Journal of the Society of Arts : Volume XLIX, No. 2527 [‎698r] (21/36)

April 26, 1901.]
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF ARTS.
433
of France, passed 5th July, 1844, is still less
exacting. An inventor or his assignee may
obtain a patent for 15 years for a useful and
novel invention provided the application is made
before the filing of the complete specification
in foreign countries with certain exceptions,
and provided that the invention is worked in
France within two years of the date of the
grant, and the working does not cease for any
two consecutive years afterwards. In addition,
the importation of the patented article invali
dates the grant, except from a country belonging
to the Union for the Protection of Industrial
Property.
The French law stipulates further, that all
articles labelled “patented” must bear in
addition the letters “ S.G.D.G.” signifying
“ not guaranteed by Government,” and the
questions, whether a patented invention is
really useful and novel, are only investigated
in case of litigation.
In strong contrast to Great Britain and
France, there is a very strict preliminary
examination in the United States and also in
Germany.
A highly-trained staff of experts examine
into the novelty of each application, calling the
attention of the inventor to any prior publica
tion that they may discover in any country.
In the United States the practice is to put
the application in interference with any other
application or patent already granted relating,
in the opinion of the examiner, to the same
subject, and a regular lawsuit follows to deter-
the priority of the inventions.
After one interference has been disposed of
another may be discovered by the examiner and
the whole procedure of hearing evidence of both
sides has to be repeated, so that it happens
not infrequently that a patent application is
kept for years before the examiners.
In Germany the specifications and drawings,
after they have passed the official examiner,
are open to public inspection, and any objection
raised by a member of the public will be con
sidered by the examiners.
The object in both these countries is to give
the inventor an opportunity of eliminating from
his specification anything that may clash with
prior rights, and to make his patent, after it
has passed through the ordeal of severe exami
nation, practically unassailable.
As already stated, this system has many
admirers in this country, and lately the
grievances of inventors relating to the prelimi
nary examination of applications for patents
have been exhaustively treated by Mr. Lloyd
Wise in a paper read before the London
Section of the Society of Ghemical Industry.
The remedies suggested by him were
summarised in Engineering of the 23rd
November, igoo, as follows :
“ The scheme is based upon the lines that: —
“ 1 . It is desirable as far as practicable to afford to
applicants for patents and to the public full informa
tion concerning the novelty of inventions in respect of
which patents are sought.
“ 2 . As, however, patents have sometimes been
ultimately supported in respect of inventions which
even eminent judges have regarded as non-patentable,
it is not advisable in any unopposed case that a
patent should be refused on the ground that the
invention or alleged invention is obviously old or has
been previously patented in this country, provided
the applicant (if required) so amends his specification
as to indicate what was previously known, thus
protecting the public against being misled.
“ 3 . Furthermore (provided that, if necessary, the
applicant suitably amends his specification), it is not
advisable either to make it publicly known that the
specification has been amended at the instance of the
Patent-office authorities or to give publicity to any
official communication of any kind (whether by en
dorsement on the specification or otherwise), implying
doubt as to the novelty of the subject matter in
respect of which the patent is granted ; because such
publicity would obviously create prejudice against
the patent, and where based upon erroneous opinion,
would operate unjustly.”
For the present purpose it is not necessary
to enter upon the considerations which led
Mr. Lloyd Wise to propound this scheme, as
the summary clearly shows that he is in favour
of making the examination for novelty much
more exhaustive than it is at present in this
country.
Before discussing this view further, it is very
instructive to observe the trend of public
opinion in a country where the examination is
as strict as it can be made, viz., in Germany.
The position of affairs is very clearly
explained in a paper read by M. von Hefner
Alteneck before the Elektr. Techn. Verein, in
Berlin, on the 27th March, 1900, in which he
made certain proposals to alter the German
Patent-law.*
In his opinion the examination system has
serious drawbacks, which he summarises as
follows:—
1. Important patents are not secured thereby
against litigation.
2 . Very heavy cost has to be incurred before
the true value of an application is ascertained.
3. After a long examination the invention
* E.T.Z. 5.4.00—p. 278.