WHAT THE CHEMIST SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PATENTS* Jos~w RO~SMAN, U. S. PATENT OPPICE, WASXINGTON, D. C.
The growing importance of chemistry i s shown by recent Patent Ofice statistics indicating that about 18 per cent. of all patent applications awaiting official action involve chemical imentions. The chemical worker i s meeting with a n increasing number of complex patent problems relating to his work. I t is therefore essentiel for him to have a thorough grasp of the essmtials of @tent law so that he may protect his m n interests or those of his employer. Our patent laws are well adapted for the protection of chemical achievements and inventions. Practically all chemical discoveries which may have a practical application in the laboratory or in the plant can be adequately protected by patents today. This paper outlines some of the basic principles of patent law which all chemists should understand, and the author urges that chemists in the industry as well as the schools and colleges should give more a t t e n t h to this subject, for a knowledge of the patent law is as important to the chemist as his research tools.
. . . . . .
Many years ago Bacon said, "To invent is to discover that we know not." His remark applies very aptly to the modern chemist who is continually making new discoveries which find practical application in the industries. Time was when the chemist rejected everything which drew him into the meshes of commerce. This was especially true of the research worker or the college professor. But times have changed. The chemist has be. come closely identified with the industrial and economic structure; he has been caUed upon to supply industries with synthetic raw materials built to meet specified conditions and purposes. The chemist has given the engineer materials for his machines and industrial structures. Without the chemist modern engineering would be impossible. Formerly the chemist felt amply rewarded if his work was published and discussed by his colleagues. If the results of his research had commercial possibilities he felt that it was up to the manufacturer or business man to exploit them if they wished to do so. The chemist was satisfied to stand by merely as an interested observer. The development of the American chemical industry has changed the entire outlook of our chemists. They are realizing that the neglect to obtain their earned commercial rewards is absurd economically as well as culturauy, for funds earned in this way could be utilized for further research and the advancement of chemistry. For this reason most chemical inventions are patented today. This fact can be readily appreciated by studying recent Patent Office statistics. On April 25, 1931, out of a total of 96,576 patent applications awaiting action there were 17,058applications *Presented before the Division of Chemical Education of the A. C. S. at the ButIalo meeting, August 3lSeptember 4. 1931. 486
VOL. 9, No. 3
CHEMICAL PATENTS
487
in eight chemical divisions of the Patent Office. In other words, nearly eighteen per cent. of all applications involved chemical inventions. This is an astonishing percentage when we consider that until recently most inventions were purely mechanical in nature. Chemical discoveries or inventions which are merely published and thus thrown open equally to all capitalists or manufacturers are seldom adopted. Bessemer, Baekeland, and other inventors have emphatically expressed this opinion. It is human nature to desire forbidden fruit. But produce a minor chemical invention and patent it and the chances are that some manufacturer may become interested in it. At least, its possibilities will be carefully studied and the patent may even be infringed. At any rate, a patent for a chemical invention certainly enhances its commercial possibilities as well as insures some financial reward to its originator. No manufacturer or capitalist would be willing today to risk his money and expend his time and energy in developing on a commercial scale a new chemical product or process without being assured that he would be protected in some measure against possible pirates. As has been aptly said, "With the possible exception of gold or oil, there is nothing which so strongly intrigues the interest of the potential investor as patents." Obviously, since it is a distinct advantage for the chemist to patent his important achievements which have commercial possibilities, the question will naturally arise how much patent law should a chemist know? First of all, he should understand that every chemical discovery which has some practical application either in the laboratory or in the plant is subject matter for patent protection. Every chemist is thus a potential inventor. New theories or principles, simple findings of facts or properties of chemical compounds are not subject matter for patents but, if these discoveries can be applied to some practical purpose, and the chemist can indicate their practical application, then in the eyes of our patent law he has made a patentable invention for which he can obtain a patent, provided, of course, it has never been described in the literature by some one else. The discovery, for instance, that ether has anesthetic properties cannot be patented* but if you should be the first one to make ether by treating alcohol with sulfuric acid then you could obtain a patent covering not only the new compound ether but also your method of making it. And if upon investigating the properties of ether you should discover that you can anesthetize a person by causing him to inhale ether by a novel method or apparatus, then you could also obtain another patent for your method of anesthetizing by the use of ether, as well as for the apparatus.
* This was actually patented but subsequently it was held invalid for the mans which will be given in greater detail later.
488
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
MARCH,1932
Furthermore, if you should discover that ether is an excellent solvent for fats and you should devise a method of extracting fats by the use of ether, then you could obtain a patent for this too. Scientific discoveries, newly found chemical properties of matter, new principles, a particular end or result to be accomplished are not patentable, no matter how brilliant these may be. But the application of a discovery to a practical and useful purpose is always patentable if the discovery is harnessed and put to work in an apparatus or process so that it can be used for practical ends. In a celebrated case involving the patent for using ether as an anesthetic the court decided against the patent because it merely claimed the discovery of the property of ether as an anesthetic. Dr. Morton, who obtained the patent, was not the first one to make ether, neither did he devise a new method of administering anesthetics or an apparatus for facilitating its administration. The patent was therefore held invalid, the court saying: In its naked, ordinary sense, a discovery is not patentable. A discovery of a new principle, force, or law operating, or which can be made to operate, on matter will not entitle the discoverer to a patent. It is only where the explorer has gone beyond the mere domain of discovery, and has laid hold of the new principle, force, or law, and connected it with some particular medium or mechanical contrivance by which, or through which, it acts on the material world, that he can secure the exclusive control of it under the Patent Act. He then controls his discovery through the means by which he has brought it into practical action, or their equivalent, and only through them. It is then an invention, although it embraces a discovery. Sever the force or principle discovered from the means or mechanism through which he has brought it into the domain of invention, and it immediately falls out of that domain and eludes his grasp. I t is then a naked discovery, and not an inventiou. Every invention may, in a certain sense, embrace more or less of discovery, for it must always include something that is new; but it by no means follows that every discovery is an invention. It may be the soul of an inventiou, but it cannot be the subject of the exclusive control of the patentee, or of the patent law, until it inhabits a body, any more than a disembodied spirit can be subjected t o the control of human laws.. . . .The origin and existence of ethers, those wonderful agents that produce a harmless insensibility to pain, formed no part of the discovery. No one of them was brought to light by these patentees, for they were all well known before.. .The real discovery that was made.. .(was), that this well known inhalation of well known agents (in increased quantities) would produce a state of the animal analoaous to complete intoxication, accom~aniedby total insensibility To pain. 1t- (the specification) app;opriately adds: "This is our discovery." I t is not important to inquire here whether this was the discovej of an increased and more perf&t effect,the same
VOL. 9, NO. 3
CHEMICAL PATENTS
489
in kind with that already well known, or whether it was the discovery of an entirely new effect. The effect discovered was produced by old agents, operating by old means upon old subjects. The effect alone was new, and to that only can the term "discovery" apply. That this mere discovery, however novel and important, is not patentable, needs neither argument nor authority to prove.
It should be evident that a great proportion of a chemist's discoveries can be protected by a patent when they have some practical application. To be sure, patents are granted for inventions, but the term "invention" as used by the Patent Office and courts does not mean that the chemist must be a genius or perform miracles. Such chemical developments as a new method of separating metals, the preparation or synthesis of new compounds, a new chemical apparatus, devised for special purposes, a treatment of ores, new alloys and their preparation, cracking oils, plating with rare metals, etc., are matters which can be patented. Asamatter of fact most chemical patents involve only small improvements over the existing literature. A sound application of chemical principles to solve technical problems can usually be patented if some modicum of originality is involved in arriving a t the new result. Of course, if the chemist does the obvious thing which a thousand other chemists would be expected to do under the same circumstances, then he is not sufficiently original to merit a patent. But if what he has done is not clearly and readily inferable from or expressed in the chemical literature or current practice, then he has added something to his field and for this he can obtain a patent. In other words, the result of the ordinary expected skill of a chemist is not ordinarily patentable. The chemist then must not necessarily make a revolutionary invention in order to obtain a patent. It is sufficient if he exercises his originality, performs unobvious manipulations or reactions which would not occur to the average chemist. It is obvious, therefore, that simple variations of procedures, apparatus or syntheses described in the literature or otherwise generally known in the chemical world cannot be patented because we would expect an ordinary chemist to make such changes. There are two essential requisites necessary for a patent-it must be for a new anduseful invention. Inasmuch as utility is generally assumed by the Patent Office the chief question to be determined is that of a novelty. An invention is novel if i t is not described in the literature or clearly inferable therefrom by an ordinary chemist working in a specificfield. If the solution of a problem would occur to the average chemist or "a person skilled in the art" as he is called in legal phraseology, then no novelty is present. The general rule in all cases is that the achievements of an average chemist exercising his chemical training and utilizing ordinary facilities is not of such a high order of originality as to merit the designation of invention.
490
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
NLnncn, 1932
The results of the exercise of ordinary chemical skill, in other words, are not patentable. But if a chemist should perform something unusual in overcoming a diiculty which was not obvious to other chemists, then he is entitled to patent protection. The chemist's patentable inventions can be classified into new chemical products, processes, and apparatus. In legal parlance chemical products are designated as "composition of matter" or "article of manufacture." Processes are often called "art" or "method" and apparatus may be termed "machine" or "means." The chemist will find that under the class legally designated as "composition of matter" many of his chemical products and compounds will be patentable. This class includes all products which are the result of chemical reaction or mechanical mixture and whether they be liquids, gases, solids, or powders. I t may not be amiss for the chemist to know that not all chemical patents must necessarily involve chemical reactions. For example, many paints, lacquers, waterprooiing liquids contain mixtures of compounds which do not necessarily react chemically, yet they can be patented because their component materials are useful for some common purpose. Thus in a paint it is obvious that the vehicle, pigment, and filler aremixed together to obtain a unitary result-that is, a good protective layer, but these components do not necessarily have to react chemically to be patentable as a "compositiou of matter." Gunpowder is another example in which the ingredients are merely mixed mechanically, but which have a definite cooperative function when used as an explosive. Gunpowder may therefore be considered as a mechanical composition of matter because its components have not yet reacted. The intermixture of the ingredients in producing a composition may be produced by mechanical or chemical operations. or by a combination of both. The resulting qualities or properties of a patentable composition of matter should differ from those of its individual components. A pure chemical compound such as nitroglycerin falls within the patent. able class of "compositiou of matter." In this case the original ingredients have reacted so as to form an entirely new compound having distinct properties of its own. A composition of matter can thus be distinguished from others not only by its properties but also by its chemical structure. The substitution of one ingredient for another in a mechanical composition of matter is ordinarily not patentable unless some unforeseen or unusual result is obtained. The mere addition of inert ingredients to old substances is not patentable, yet the mixture of nitroglycerin with inert diatomaceous earth, producing dynamite, caused such radical changes
VOL. 9, NO. 3
CHEMICAL PATENTS
491
in the behavior of nitroglycerin that it was considered to be a patentable composition. A change in the proportions of ingredients in a composition of matter is not patentable, except when a new result is obtained. For example, Charles Goodyear discovered that soft, vulcanized rubber can be produced by heating rubber with 6 to 20 per cent. sulfur. For this be obtained a patent. Later Nelson Goodyear discovered that by increasing the sulfur 25 per cent. and upward a hard rubber product was obtained. Although this was merely a change in proportions of the ingredients a new and unknown substance was produced with unusual properties not possessed by Charles Goodyear's product. Such change was therefore held to be sufficiently novel to be patentable.
1. Processes resulting in patentable products. 2. Processes resulting in the commercial production of something known previously in the laboratory. 3. Processes resulting in the elimination of impurities from a chemical article. 4. Processes for a cheaper or better production of a commercial article requiring elaborate or distinctive apparatus. 5. Processes requiring ordinary apparatus, resulting in the production of an article possessing distinctive but unpatentable characteristics. 6. Processes requiring only ordinary apparatus and showing nothing distinctive in the product. The Supreme Court has defined a process as a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing. A process is an act or mode of acting. It is evident, of course, that a series of physical operations such as folding a sheet of paper may be considered a patentable process. In a chemical process the materials treated may be considered to enter into or patentably modify the steps. Thus a process of heating a mixture of calcium oxide and carbon to 2000 degrees C. is different from a process of beating a mixture of silica and carbon, for in one case calcium carbide is produced and in the other silicon carbide. But where chemically inert substances are broadly treated or mixed as in the steps of mixing asphalt and cork, which may be considered to be a patentable process, a similar procedure in mixing asphalt and coke would not be a patentable process because the same steps are taken. The novelty would reside in the resulting mixtures and not in the steps of mixing. Many factors must be considered in determining the patentability of chemical processes. In describing the process it is only necessary to describe the mechanical steps taken in executing the process. It is not
necessary to give a scientific explanation of the theories or reactions involved. It is assumed that the description is addressed to the chemist and only essential directions in obtaining the desired results need be given. The ingredients or materials used in the process must of course be specified, giving details as to quantities or proportions, the purity of materials used, the condition of the materials whether solid, liquid or gaseous, or colloidal, the strength and concentration of solutions, the solvents employed, and pH values-if any of these factors are vital and critical. Operating conditions should be given in regard to temperature, pressure, nascent state, electrical conditions, or other conditions which may be essential, such as light, X-rays, effect of catalysts, enzymes, or bacteria. If time is essential to the process i t must also be specified. If a variation of any of these factors brings about a new and unexpected technical result then we can be sure that we have a patentable process. Novelty in an apparatus may reside in utilizing new means although the result obtained in using the apparatus is old. Novelty may consist of the use of old means in a new way whereby new functions are performed or new results produced. Novelty may reside in a new arrangement or combination of old elements. But mere obvious changes such as changes in degree, size or proportions, transposition of parts, strengthening or enlarging parts, substituting other materials, duplication of parts, omission of elements, substitution of equivalents, change of location, making parts integral, separate, or adjustable. However, any change may involve invention if i t leads to an unobvious, unforeseen, or unusual and highly desirable result which could not be foreseen or predicted, thus producing a new mode of operation or effect previously unknown. A combination of old parts is not patentable nuless a new mode of operation is introduced which was not known before, but a more convenient assemblage of devices, each performing its own separate function, independent of the others, is considered to be merely an aggregation and therefore not patentable. The assembly of separate units into an organized whole is not patentable if i t merely required ordinary and expected skill to do so. It is important for the chemist to know that he can legally protect most of his researches when they have industrial uses. By patenting his achievements he will enhance his discoveries, increase his prestige, encourage the development of the chemical industry, induce capitalists to back him with their financial resources and thus ultimately advance our entire social welfare. No chemist should be ignorant of the essentials of patent law any more than he can afford to be ignorant of the fundamental principles of chemistry. The principles of patent law are easy to grasp and a moderate amount of study will be well worth while to the chemist in enabling him to decide general questions of patent policy. He will know when and how to
VOL. 9, NO. 3
CHEMICAL PATENTS
493
avoid infringement of chemical patents owned by competitors. He will understand the scope of his own patent protection-whether i t is sufficient for his purposes. He will be sure t o devise possible alternative methods and patent them in order t o catch would-be infringers. He will be able to advise his executives in an authoritative manner in regard to patent suits and give sensible opinions based not only on his knowledge of chemistry but also on patent law. He will be able to coijperate in an intelligent manner with his patent attorney and understand what he is doing and how well he is doing it. He will be able to defend his patent in court and knowing the essentials of patent law he will know the significance of his testimony as well as that of others. He will know the value of keeping accurate records of his experiments and carefully preserve them. He will disclose his new ideas to trusted people a t the opportune and proper time and make suitable notes of such facts. He will preserve important correspondence relating to his work. He will understand the principles of patent agreements, licenses, and royalties sufficiently to protect his interests so that he may not be deprived of his earned reward. Too many chemists take the attitude that they have merely utilized ordinary principles of chemistry and laboratory methods in performing their every-day duties. Some of our most important chemical industries are based on extremely simple reactions. The electrolytic production of aluminum, the contact sulfuric acid process, the manufacture of electrolytic caustic soda and chlorine, for instance, involve very simple chemical reactions. In case of disputes with his employer the chemist will know what rights he has to his inventions which are developed in the laboratory of his employer; he will understand how it can be possible for him t o infringe other patents even though he has been granted a patent by the government. He will fully understand why a patent does not give him any legal rights unless he enforces them himself; he will know that the "exclusive" right to his invention granted by a patent means the right to exclude others by bringing suit against them; but that otherwise his patent is subject to the prior rights of others: he will appreciate the importance of thoroughly investigating the patent literature before launching upon any manufacturing venture lest he be prohibited from carrying on his business by owners of dominating patents. He will know that his patent will be invalid if he fails to disclose the essential features of the invention which are vital in obtaining the desired result and he will therefore not fail t o mention in his patent critical temperatures, concentrations, pressures, proportions of ingredients, optimum range of operating conditions as regards time or reaction conditions, proper sequence of operations or circulation and handling of materials, the use of catalysts, the state of purity of his reagents if these be essential. He will not delay in filing his patent application more
494
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
MARCH. 1932
than two years after it is in public use lest he lose his legal rights to a patent. He will know how to investigate the patent literature and utilize it as a source of information. He will know how to keep up to date with the latest patented inventions so as to keep an eye on his competitors as well as to receive suggestions for improving his own methods or developing new ones. He will not ask, "What good is a patent to a chemist?" for as previously pointed out, it may, first of all, help him to obtain capital for commercially developing his chemical invention. He may also sell his patent outright, or on a royalty basis, to a manufacturer, and thus get an early financial return for his work. If the chemist is a manufacturer he can obtain a monopoly of his particular business through his patent, preventing every one else from mak'mg his product. A patent also has excellent advertising value in selling the product. It must also be remembered that a patent serves as a publication, thus clearly recording the chemist's contribution to his field. No chemical process need he kept secret for, by patenting it, legal protection can be obtained, whereas if the secret leaks out, the chemist may lose all his rights to his invention. He can also freely publish his results and be assured that he will not be deprived of his rights, for his patent will protect him. He will thus further his own interests as well as help to promote the advance of his industry in disclosing his inventions to others and thus stimulate further research and development. Our chemical schools are sending out their chemists and chemical engineers in abysmal ignorance of patent law. Hence the chemist is usually fleeced and rohbed of his creative work and only after much bitter experience and loss of time and money does he learn his fundamentals of patent law. Would it not be better to require every chemist and chemical engineer to take a thorough course in patent law? Why should the young, hopeful graduate be deprived of a powerful tool-a tool as essential as any of his research tools? Only then will chemical workers be respected by society at large as well as by our executives and capitalists. For every successful achievement in chemical industry there have been hundreds of failures and heartbreaks due to pure ignorance, and it is time that our schools at least make some attempt to equip our chemists to fight their battles with their eyes wide open. If knowledge is power-then surely knowledge of patent law is full of possibilities to every chemist. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PATENTS AND INVENTIONS OF INTEREST TO CHEMISTS The following annotated bibliography may be useful to the chemist as a guide in looking up the literature on patent law. AVRAM, M o ~ H., s "Patenting and Promoting Inventions," R. M. McBride & Co., New York City, 1918.
VOL.9, No. 3
CHEMICAL PATENTS
495
Same helpful suggestions are given for commercializing inventions. B m , W., "Inventions, Their Development, Purchase, and Sale," D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., New York City, 1920. This book also treats the commercial aspects of inventions. GLASCOCK, E. S., "Manual of Patent Ofice Procedure," 5th edition. Patent Office Society. Washington, D. C.. 1929. The internal procedure in the Patent Ofice is desnibed in this book. Important executive orders and notices of the Cammissioner of Patents are also included. HOAR,R. S., "Patents," Ronald Press, New York City, 1926. A popular account of so much of the patent law as will enable a business executive to understand his patent attorney and t o coiiperate fully with him. "Law Books and Their Use." 6th edition, The Lawyers Cobperative Publishing Co., Rochester, N. Y.. 1930. This is a useful manual discussing the sources of the law and how to search them. MCCRADY, A n c m ~R., "Patent OfficePractice," H. D. Williams Co., Washington. D. C.. 1928. A legal textbook which covers the entire field of prosecuting patent applications before the United States Patent Ofice. The Rules of Practice are taken up systematically and thoroughly, pertinent decisions being cited for every important point discussed. The author states in his preface that "a knowledge on the part of the reader of the fundamentals of substantive patent law has been assumed." MILLER,HOWARD S., "Reformation of Interference Issnes," Published by author, Washington, D. C.. 1929. Some d i 5 d t legal phases in interference procedure are treated in this book. It is written primarily for patent attorneys. "Patent Laws," U. S. Govt. Printing Office,Washington, D. C.. 1931. This booklet contains all the federal laws relating to patents. It can he obtained free of charge from the U. S. Patent Ofice. "Patents," American Law Book Co., New York City, 1929. An e x d e n t and concise expository statement of patent law is given in this volume which is reprinted from volume 48 of Corpus Juris, an exhaustive encyclopedia of law. Every point discussed is supported by the citation of many decisions. It is a valuable reference work for patent attorneys in finding the law. P o r n , HAROLD E., "Patents and Chemical Research," University of Liverpool, 1921.
Although dealing with English patent law this baok contains a great deal of interesting matter to the American chemist interested in patents. RHouss, F.H., "Patent Law;' McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York City, 1931. A popular exposition of patent law. Its chief defect consists in having tao many quotations from the Statutes and Rules of Practice which are confusing and unintelligible to the beginner as their meaning is not thoroughly explained. Ross, JOEN F.. "Patent Essentials," Funk and Wagnalls, New York City. 1928. This baok is an attempt to give a popular explanation of patent law but the author often lapses into language which can only be understood by a
496
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
MARCH,1932
patent attorney. Mechanical rather than chemical inventions are stressed. The appendix, occupying nearly half of the book, contains a complete reproduction of file wrappers of mechanical, process, and composition of matter applications. ROBERTS,GEORGEL., "Patentability of Inventions and the Interpretations of Patents," 2 vols., Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1927. This book is written primarily for the patent attorney. It is an attempt to give the legal answer to the question: What is a patentable invention? by an analysis of many court decisions. RosrNsoN, WILLIAMC., "The Law of Patents for Useful Inventions," 3 vols., Little, Brawn & Co., Boston, 1890. A classic and the most thorough treatise an patent law. Unfortunately it is not up t o date and therefore not dependable for present-day practice. ROGERS, WALTER, "The Law of Patents," 2 vols., Bobbs-Merrill Co.. Indianapolis, 1914.
Thiq houk consirts of a dwcussion of patent law principlrs as well as the acrunl opinions of the courts rcnder~din lcndmp patent caius. Important statutes and rule, are nlm included. it is ~rimarilva rrfrrencc hook for the patent attorney. ROSSMAN, JOSEPH,"The Law of Patents far Chemists," The Inventors Pub. Co., Washington, D. C., 1932. This book aims to give a rather comprehensive treatment of the technical subject of patent law in language which can be comprehended by chemists without legal training. ROSSMAN, JOSEPH,"The Psychology of the Inventor," The Inventors Pub. Co., Washington, D. C., 1931. This book is based on a study of 710 active contemporary inventors. I t describes the actual methods followed by inventors, their mental processes, how they get ideas, the obstacles and pitfalls which they encounter, andmany other interesting aspects relating to the work of the inventor. "Rules of Practice in the United States Patent Office," U. S. Govt. Printing Office. Washington. D. C., 1931. This pamphlet contains all the rules of procedure in the U. S. Patent Office. An appendix is included containing approved legal forms. This pamphlet may be obtained free of charge from the U. S. Patent Office. S ~ M I DH T ,~ m J., m "Your Patent." Euclid Publishing Co., New York City, 1929. Information is given in this book on how to sell or otherwise commercialize inventions. SINGER,BERTHOLD, "Patent Laws of the World," New York City, 1930. The essential features of the patent laws of all the countries in the world are outlined in this book. STRINGHAM, EMERSON, "Patent Soliciting and Examining: A Guide to ex parte Practice in the U. S. Patent Office," Pacot Publications, Washington, D. C., 1930. This book is in substance a new edition of "Examining Patent Applications" (1924). It cites and discusses many recent decisions relating to the prosecution of patent applications. The law is stated very dearly and many citations to artides and textbooks are given for further investigation of difficult legal questions.
VOL.9,No. 3
CHEMICAL PATENTS
497
S m o n n a r , EMERSON, "Patent Claim Drafting," Pacot Publications, Washington,
D. C., 1930. An excellent and unique book discussing all the important legal aspects relating to the drafting of claims. Numerous decisions are cited and many types of daims are quoted as illustrative examples. It is written for the patent attorney. STRINGHAM, EMERSON, "Patent Interference Equity Suits," Pacat Publications, Washington, D. C., 1930. Suits under Revised Statutes 4915 and 4918 are treated in this book. Elaborate forms are included. THOMAS, EDWARD, "The Law of Chemical Patents," D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., New York City, 1927. The book consists of a compilation of quotations from court decisions. The text proper is very meager consisting of only a few pages. TO~LBUN. H. A,, "Patent Law for the Inventor and Executive," Harper & Bros., New York City, 1928. The title is misleading since the subject is not treated systematically. The book consists of a popular discussion of miscellaneous problems in patent law. Of particular interest is chapter IV containing forms for keeping invention records. UNDERWOOD, HOMERC., "Interference Practice," Patent Law Pub. Co., Detroit. Mich., 1928. A reference book for patent attorneys covering the iegal aspects of interference procedure. "United States Code Annotated, Title 35, Patents," West Publishing Ca., St. Paul, Minn., 1929. This \ d u m e contains all the statutes relating to patents. I t is kept up to date by a supplement. 3lany citations of court decisions are given which are oseful in locating thc lnw. Lorsca, JOHN L., "Walker on Patents." 6th Edition, 2 vols.. Baker, Voorhis & Co., New York City, 1929. Walker on Patents is the standard textbook on patent law. It has been quoted often in legal opinions. The first edition was published in 1886. The present second volume contains all the patent laws enacted since 1790. A list of all patents cases decided by the Supreme Court, together with a short statement of the matter covered by the decision, is given. Forms used in patent litigation are also included. WRIGHT,MILTON,"Invention and Patents." McGraw-Hill B w k Co., New York City, 1927. A popular, very readable book giving sound advice for commercializing inventions.
PERIODICALS Verv little information concernina of interest ta the chemist is available - Datents . in the usual periodical literature. The Journal of the Potent OficeSociety (Washington, D. C.). bemn .. a monthly. ~eriodical . . in 1918, contains a wealth of information relating to all phases of patent law. The majority of the articles are written by Patent Office officials and prominent patent attorneys. A ten-year subject index appears in Volume 11. The following articles are also of interest to the chemist:
498
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDVCATION
MARCE,1932
BAEKELAND, L. H., "Protection of Intellectual Property in Relation to Chemical Industry." Met. Chem. Eng., 1 1 , 3 1 4 (1913). BARROWS. FRANK E., "Patent Law of Interest t o Chemists. I. Patent Rights," I d . Eng. Chem., 15,80-2 (1923). BURGESS, LOUIS, "When Should Yon Apply far a Patent?" Chem. & Met. Eng., 36, 728-9 (1929). BURGESS,Loms, "Protecting Ideas through Patents and Litigation," ibid., 36,l-0 (1929). B m c ~ s s LOUIS, , "What Constitutes Invention?" ibid., 36, 8 3 4 (1929). DANNERTH, FREDBRIC, "Legal and Official Chemistry," ihid., 24, 397-9 (1921). DELLER,WILLIAM D., "Principles of Patent Law Involved in the Webs Patent Litigation." Ind. Eng. Chem., 20,13614 (1928). GnosvENoR, WILLmM M., "The Seeds of Progress," Chem. Markets, 24, 23-6 (1929). HESSE, BERNC., "The Patent Expert and the Chemical Manufacturer," Ind. Eng. Chem., 5,854-7 (1913). JENKS,CLAYTON L., "Industrial Research and Patents," Chem. & Met. Eng., 26, 3 9 6 7 (1922). JENKS, CLAYTON L.. "Inventors, Inventions and Patent Practice," Chem. Age (New York), 31, 151, 213, 261, 315, 367, 409, 471, 513, 553 (1923); 32, 87, 135, 187, 240,314,347,464 (1924). JESSOP, EARLN., "Geman Patent-Bibliography," I d . Eng. Chem., 8, 10534 (1916). KEYES,D. B., "The Appraisal of Chemical Invention," ihid., 15,9723 (1923). KEYES,D. B., "Applyingfor a Patent," Chem. & Met. Eng., 29,4054 (1923). MCELROY, K. P., "Product Patents;' Ind. Eng. Chem., 10, 257-8 (1918). MCELROY, K. P., "Elements in Patent Law," ibid.,21,608-9 (1929). MARX, CARL, "Chemical Patent Searches," Chem. Age (New York), 31, 3 9 3 4 (1923). MASTICK,SEABURYC., "Chemical Patents," Ind. Eng. Chem., 7 , 789-97, 874-82, 984-91,1071-81 (1917). RIWSE, CHARLESW., "What's Patentable in Industrial and Chemical Engineering," ibid., 23, 580-93 (1931). ROSSMAN, JOSEPH, "Patents and Research," C h m . Markets, 28, 3 7 3 4 (1931). S m m , JULUN F., "Patent Reference Sources," Ind. Eng. Chem., 16, 527-8 (1924). THOMAS.EDWARD,"An Outline of the Law of Chemical Patents," ibid., 19, 176-80.315-7,4264 (1927). TOULMIN,H. A., AND HEYWOOD, 1.. "Some Pitfalls of Chemical Invention," Chem. & Met. Eng., 32, 157-8 (1925). TOULMIN, H. A., "Chemical Problems in Patent Law," ibid., 33, 729 (1926). UNTIEDT.FREDERICK H., "Some Aspects of Chemical Patent Searches," Ind. Eng. C h m . , 21, 689-91 (1929). VANDOREN.LLOYD, "Current Chemical Patents and Chemical Problems," Chem. Age (New York), 30, 189-90, 2358, 333, 3656, 467-8, 5134, 55942 (1922); 31, 434.79,139 (1923). VAN DOREN.LLOYD,''Rights of Employer and Employee." ibid.. 31, 4 9 3 4 (1923).
VOL.9, NO. 3
CHEMICAL PATENTS
499
VAN DOREN,L m m , "Studies in Chemical Patent Procedure. I. Hall Patents for Aluminum Production," Ind.Eng. Chm., 21,120-4 (1929).
* * * * * * Artides on the subject of patents which have appeared in the JOURNAI. OP CAEMI~ A EDUCATION L are as follows: VANDOREN,LLOYD,"What the Chemistry Student Should Know about Patent Procedure. I. Development of Our Patent System," J. CAEM.EDUC., 6, 123-8 Om., 1929); "11. Organization of the Patent Office," ibid., 6, 53640 (Mar., 1929); "111. Preparation of the Application," ibid., 6,966-72 (May, 1929).
