« ÎnapoiContinuați »
The letter of the War Department explaining the matter is as follows:
January 30, 1930. Hon. W. FRANK JAMES, Chairman Committee on Military Affairs,
House of Representatives. DEAR MR. JAMES: In compliance with the verbal request of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, of January 27, 1930, for information concerning H. R. 4198, to authorize the exchange of certain lands adjoining the Catoosa Springs (Ga.) target range, the War Department submits the following:
The Fort Oglethorpe (Ga.) target-range reservation was established at Catoosa Springs, Ga., under authority of an act of Congress approved June 30, 1906 (Public, No. 383, 59th Cong.). It is a permanent Army target range used in connection with Fort Oglethorpe, Ga.
During an inspection of this reservation in 1926, considerable variation was discovered between the reservation fence line and the true boundary line of the reservation. In some places the fence was found to be inside of the boundary line. In one instance the property outside of the fence was claimed by Mr. Benjamin F. Harris, of Ringgold, Ga., and although the records of the War Department indicate that title to the land in dispute is vested in the United States, it was considered advisable to settle the dispute by negotiation. As a result of these negotiations, Mr. Harris has agreed to deed to the Government his interest in a 3-acre tract of land at or near the summit of Sand Mountain, which he now owns, in exchange for the Government's interest in the tract of 70,000 square feet in dispute.
The land in dispute with Mr. Harris is no longer required by the War Department, and since the 3 acres at the summit of Sand Mountain are constantly being fired over, it is deemed to the best interest of the Government to acquire this 3-acre tract.
The authority requested is for the even exchange of titles to these lands without cost to the Goverpment. Trusting that the above fully covers the points in question, believe me, Sincerely yours,
PATRICK J. HURLEY,
Secretary of War. O
AMEND THE TRADE-MARK ACT
FEBRUARY 24, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. VESTAL, from the Committee on Patents, submitted the following
[To accompany H. R. 10076)
The Committee on Patents, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 10076) to amend sections 476, 482, and 4934 of the Revised Statutes, sections 1 and 14 of the trade-mark act of February 20, 1905, as amended, and section 1 (b) of the trade-mark act of March 19, 1920, and for other purposes, having had the same under consideration, now reports the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the same be passed.
Section 1 of this bill provides one additional Assistant Commissioner and three additional examiners in chief.
Section 3 increases the fees as follows: The filing fee for patents from $20 to $25 and the final fee from $20 to $25; the trade-mark fee from $10 to $15; certificates from 25 cents to 50 cents; and the fee for recording assignments to $3, if they do not exceed six pages, and $1 for each additional two pages or less; the assignment fee being also increased so as to charge 50 cents instead of 25 cents additional for each additional patent involved.
The object of this bill is to make it possible for the patent office to properly function. A bill has already passed the House of Representatives (H. R. 8960) making sufficient appropriations for 110 additional examiners and 30 additional clerks, but with the proviso that the appropriation for 50 of these examiners and 10 of the clerks shall not be "available unless the bill for increasing the fees shall be enacted into law."
The various increases in fees referred to above will bring into the Patent Office an additional revenue of approximately $850,000. The deficit last year amounted to $608,000, and the combined deficits for the last five years have amounted to almost $2,000,000, or about $380,000 per year. The appropriation bill as it passed the House calls' for an additional appropriation for 1931 of approximately
$415,000. It is therefore hoped, if the fees are increased as above stated, that the Patent Office will be approximately on a self-sustaining basis to carry out the intent of section 5 of the bill.
The increase in fees as provided for by the bill is vitally essential if the Patent Office is to be so supported that it can give service to the inventors. At the present time owing to the tremendous increase of work, it is necessary for the examiners in the Patent Office to compel an inventor to wait from 1 to 10 months in getting his first report on an application after it is filed, the average being about 7 months. The Patent Office should be so organized what no examiner will be longer than two months in making his first report on an application for patent and the average should be under a month. It is the hope of the committee that, by increasing the fees to provide for a proper personnel, the Patent Office can gradually catch up with its work.' There are now so many cases awaiting action that even with the increased force it will probably be at least two years before the ultimate aim is reached.
All the attorneys who appeared before the committee (except one) approved the increase of fees. In fact, this matter has been considered by a committee on patent lawyers and engineers representing all the different patent-law associations in the country. On April 15, 1926, a report was made to the then Secretary of Commerce, now President Hoover, by the "Committee on Patent Office Procedure." This committee consisted of Mr. Eugene G. Mason, representing the American Bar Association; Mr. George A. Prevost, the American Patent Law Association (the national association of patent lawyers having members in over 50 different cities); Mr. Thomas Ewing, former Commissioner of Patents, representing the New York Patent Law Association; Mr. Henry N. Paul, the Philadelphia Patent Law Association; Mr. Jo. Baily Brown, the Pittsburgh Patent Law Association; Mr. Harry Frease, the Cleveland Patent Law Association; Mr. Milton Tibbetts, the Michigan Patent Law Association; Mr. Henry M. Huxley, the Chicago Patent Law Association; Mr. L. W. Wallace, the American Engineering Council; Mr. Edwin J. Prindle, the National Association of Manufacturers; Mr. A. J. Brosseau, the United States Chamber of Commerce; and Messrs. Leffingwell and Clark, representing the engineers.
This committee of representative men from all over the country, after spending two years in studying the Patent Office conditions, made an elaborate report, from which the following is copied:
It is the consensus of opinion of the committee that if Congress deems it necessary to increase the fees in order to meet the additional expenses which this report advocates, it would be acceptable to the country.
For the purpose of suggesting how the additional funds may be secured, the committee recommends recommendation 91:
An increase of $5 on each Government fee, the filing and the final fee, to provide the additional amount required per year by the Patent Office to render that increased quality and quantity of work essential.
The Government fees for obtaining a patent for over 50 years prior to 1922 amounted to $35; since 1922 they have been $40 and under this bill they will be $50, a total increase of $15 in 60 years, during which time the expenses of running the Patent Office have increased tremendously. This is all the inventor has to pay the Government to obtain his patent unless he has claims in excess of 20, where there is a fee of $i for each additional claim. This is very
reasonable compared to foreign countries, for in most countries an inventor is charged a fee or tax each year his patent is alive and in some countries these fees progressively increase from year to year. With one exception, all of the attorneys who appeared before the committee testified that it was their belief that the inventors of the country would cheerfully pay the increased fees if they could only get reasonably prompt service from the Patent Office.
Your committee therefore having in mind the recommendation of the committee on Patent Office procedure, as above quoted, recommends that the bill (H. R. 10076) be passed.