HOW CAN THE CHEMIST HELP THE PATENT LAWYER PATENT BACKGROUND AND CHEMICAL PROPRIETORSHIP* By ELLSWORTH H. MOSHER Stevens, Davis, Miller and Nosher, h s e p Building, Washington 4,
The United S t a t e s patent s t a t u t e is based upon t h e English "Statute of Monopolies'' of J a m e s I, we having i n h e r i t e d our l e g a l background f r o m OUI' English cousins. Because of the recognized i m p o r t a n c e of inventions to the economic development of the nation, a n exception to t h e g e n e r a l condemnation of monopolies was m a d e i n the f a m o u s English Statute of Monopolies in f a v o r of the 1i.mited patent monopoly f o r inventions. A patent is a c o n t r a c t between the inventor and the g o v e r n m e n t whereby the inventor d i s c l o s e s his invention t o the public i n exchange f o r a g r a n t f r o m the g o v e r n m e n t of the right to exclude o t h e r s f r o m the p r a c t i c e of the invention i n o u r c a s e , seventeen for a limited time y e a r s . The d e s i r a b i l i t y of providing f o r a n eff e c t i v e patent s y s t e m a l s o w a s recognized by the f o u n d e r s of our country as shown by the Constitutional provision embodied i n A r t i c l e I, Section 8 , and, s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , by the first Patent Act of 17'90. P r e s i d e n t Washington's f i r s t annual m e s s a g e t o C o n g r e s s contained r e f e r e n c e t o patents. As everyone! knows, p r o c u r i n g a patent i n volves as a first s t e p the p r e p a r a t i o n and filing of the patent application. T h i s r e q u i r e s , e s p e c i a l l y in the c a s e of complicated chemical i n ventions, considerable t r a i n i n g and e x p e r i e n c e . The t r a i n i n g of a. patent l a w y e r e n c o m p a s s e s h a r d l y l e s s than six y e a r s , and usually m o r e . While the p r o f e s s i o n is r e w a r d i n g , the long c o u r s e of t r a i n i n g that is r e q u i r e d tends to m a k e it a r a t h e r l i m i t e d opportunity f o r the o r d i n a r y student of technology. P a r t l y f o r t h a t r e a s o n , and p a r t l y f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t during the p o s t World W a r I1 period t h e scope and extent of c h e m i c a l r e s e a r c h and development p r o g r e s s e d by l e a p s and bounds i n c o n t r a s t t o the number of technical people t r a i n e d t o t h e t a s k , t h e r e simply a r e not enough fully t r a i n e d chemical patent l a w y e r s t o cope with the demand. Thus, ways and m e a n s a r e being sought to u s e the nation's supply of patent l a w y e r s m o r e efficiently. Obviously, v e r y c l o s e cooperation between the c h e m i s t and the patent l a w y e r will be e s s e n t i a l to s u c c e s s i n suc:h a n undertaking. In o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e how best they m a y c o o p e r a t e , it will be helpful f i r s t t o consider t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r o l e s i n r e l a t i o n to the t a s k . Under Section 112 of the P a t e n t Act of 1952: "35 U.S.C. 112. Specification. The specification s h a l l contain a w r i t t e n des c r i p t i o n of the invention, and of the m a n n e r and p r o c e s s of making and using i t , i n s u c h
D. C.
f u l l , c l e a r , concise, and exact t e r m s as to enable any p e r s o n skilled i n the a r t to which it p e r t a i n s , o r with which it is m o s t n e a r l y connected, to m a k e and use the s a m e , and shall s e t f o r t h the b e s t mode contemplated by the inventor of c a r r y i n g out h i s invention. "The specification shall conclude with one o r m o r e c l a i m s p a r t i c u l a r l y pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject m a t t e r which the applicant r e g a r d s as h i s invention." M o r e o v e r , under Rules 71(b) and ( c ) of the Rules of P r a c t i c e i n the Patent Office: "(b) The specification m u s t s e t f o r t h the p r e c i s e invention f o r which a patent is s o l i c i t e d , in s u c h m a n n e r a s t o distinguish i t f r o m o t h e r inventions and f r o m what is old. It m u s t d e s c r i b e completely a specific e m bodiment of the p r o c e s s , machine, manuf a c t u r e , composition of m a t t e r o r i m p r o v e m e n t invented, and m u s t explain the mode of o p e r a tion o r principle whenever appiicable. The best mode contemplated by the inventor of c a r r y i n g out his invention m u s t be s e t f o r t h . " ( c ) In the c a s e of a n i m p r o v e m e n t , the specification m u s t p a r t i c u l a r l y point out the p a r t o r p a r t s of the p r o c e s s , machine, manuf a c t u r e , o r composition of m a t t e r to which the i m p r o v e m e n t r e l a t e s , and the d e s c r i p t i o n should be confined to the specific i m p r o v e m e n t and t o s u c h p a r t s as n e c e s s a r i l y cooperate with i t o r as may be n e c e s s a r y to a complete understanding o r d e s c r i p t i o n of it." The drafting of the c l a i m s of the patent application is a n e x t r e m e l y important m a t t e r falling peculiarly within the province of the skilled chemical patent l a w y e r , who m o r e often than not is a graduate c h e m i s t o r chemical engineer. The writing of the detailed d e s c r i p t i o n of the invention, which however is a l s o of g r e a t i m p o r tance t o the validity of the r e s u l t i n g patent ( t o s a y nothing of its s c o p e ) , is p r e c i s e l y w h e r e the patent l a w y e r often can m a k e the m o s t efficient use of the c h e m i s t p a r t i c u l a r l y if the patent lawyer happens to be working f o r the m o m e n t in a n a b s t r u s e and highly t h e o r e t i c a l branch of the chemical a r t s a n d / o r one which might be s o m e what off the beaten path r e p r e s e n t e d by the lawy e r ' s own t r a i n i n g and background in c h e m i s t r y . Far away and long ago t h e r e w e r e l e a r n e d m e n who had at t h e i r f i n g e r t i p s a g r a s p of all l i t e r a l l y all the knowledge of the day. One m a y mention M a i n deLille ( a l s o known a s Alanus de I n s u l i s ) of the e a r l y 13th c e n t u r y , whose l e a r n i n g w a s so v a s t that he was given the s u r name Doctor U n i v e r s a l i s by c o n t e m p o r a r y
-
-
-
*Presented before the Dinision of Chemical Literature. ACS National Meeting, New York, N.Y., September 12, 1960.
29
-
30
E l l s w o r t h H. Mosher
s c h o l a r s i n recognition of h i s u n i v e r s a l knowledge. Roger Bacon, of somewhat l a t e r in the s a m e century, was another m a n of tremendous learning in the field of the natural s c i e n c e s , and frequently is credited with being the f i r s t to have r e a l l y recognized the g r e a t importance of the experimental method instead of simply r e peating parrot-like what had been w r i t t e n by Aristotle and Pliny and Galen c e n t u r i e s before. R o g e r ' s i l l u s t r i o u s n a m e s a k e , F r a n c i s Bacon, of the l a t e 16th-early 17th century was another intellectual giant, equally a t home in the natural s c i e n c e s of his day as well a s the law. In law he was especially distinguished, having r i s e n to the exalted post of Lord Chancellor of England. It is a s a d f a c t t h a t , a l a s , he proved f a l s e t o h i s t r u s t , and was thrown out of office f o r bribepy and corruption, but t h i s does not d e t r a c t f r o m his s t a t u r e as a t r u l y g r e a t s c h o l a r . His chief i n t e r e s t f o r u s , aside f r o m the unquestioned f a c t of the v a r i e t y of h i s i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s , r e s i d e s probably i n the f a c t that he was one of the f i r s t if indeed not the f i r s t to recognize the importance of sustained joint efforts of numb e r s of w o r k e r s in conducting scientific r e search s e e the d e s c r i p t i o n of Solomon's House i n his book "The New Atlantis." He m a y p e r h a p s be r e g a r d e d as the "Adam'$ of all present-day d i r e c t o r s of r e s e a r c h . We no longer have m e n such as t h e s e today, m e n who single-handedly could cope with p r a c t i cally any phase of any technical p r o b l e m that might a r i s e . This is by no m e a n s a reflection on today's s c i e n t i s t , but simply a recognition that human knowledge h a s i n c r e a s e d s o g r e a t l y , both in breadth and i n depth, that i t is a n absolute impossibility f o r any one p e r s o n to do m u c h m o r e than s c r a t c h the s u r f a c e in one relatively tiny a r e a of knowledge. It is f o r this r e a s o n that the highly specialized background of education and training that is the c h e m i s t ' s can be employed s o usefully i n conjunction with whatever technical education and training a r e p o s s e s s e d by the patent l a w y e r . A secondary r e a s o n m a y be that the patent lawyer frequently is m o r e y e a r s r e m o v e d f r o m h i s f o r m a l scholastic training than his c h e m i s t a s s i s t a n t , s o that much of the t h e o r y that or is supposed to he may once have l e a r n e d have l e a r n e d h a s faded f r o m h i s mind. With a recognition of the limitations imposed upon the patent lawyer by considerations such as those we have a l r e a d y mentioned, we come then to a c l e a r e r understanding of j u s t how the c h e m i s t can best a s s i s t the patent lawyer with h i s w o r k o r perhaps i t would be better to put i t i n t e r m s of their working together a s a t e a m to f u r t h e r the i n t e r e s t s of the client m o s t efficiently and yet m o s t economically. It i s c l e a r , is i t not, that the c h e m i s t c a n and d o e s g r e a t l y a s s i s t the patent lawyer by putting together a coherent description of the invention, based upon the c h e m i s t ' s careful study and s c r e e n i n g of frequently voluminous p r o g r e s s
-
-
-
-
-
--
r e p o r t s , final r e p o r t s , notebook r e c o r d s r e flecting a c t u a l l a b o r a t o r y w o r k , e&., all e m a nating d i r e c t l y or indirectly f r o m the inventor. As h e , the c h e m i s t , becomes m o r e and m o r e skilled i n this work, he a l s o will acquire a g r e a t e r adeptness in sensing which of the i n v e n t o r ' s original m a t e r i a l s t o omit as s u p e r f l u ous o r s o m e t i m e s downright damaging; what f u r t h e r technical information he should s e e k f r o m the inventor i n o r d e r t o round out the description, and p a r t i c u l a r l y to provide a m o r e n e a r l y adequate b a s i s f o r c l a i m s of b r o a d e r scope; how better to w r i t e up the description in the light of other r e l a t e d inventions of the s a m e inventor or o t h e r s if the invention in question happens to be p a r t of a p r o g r a m of r e s e a r c h and development (and the i m p o r t a n c e of t h i s a s p e c t c a n hardly be oveTe m p h a s i z e d , f o r obvious r e a s o n s ) ; whether drawings or flowsheets a r e n e c e s s a r y a s a n aid to the description and, if s o , what f o r m t h e s e should take; whether a l i t e r a t u r e a n d / o r patents s e a r c h is worthwhile to discover additional a r t o v e r and above that a l r e a d y known to and cited by the inventor and, if s o , t o make it himself or perhaps to s u p e r v i s e a s e a r c h by o t h e r s ; and provisionally a t l e a s t , whether the p e r s o n or p e r s o n s purporting to be the inventor or inventors is o r a r e entitled t o be recognized a s such f o r the all-important purpose of making the n e c e s s a r y oath of inventorship. Finally, i t is f r e quently of g r e a t a s s i s t a n c e a s a t i m e s a v e r to the patent lawyer to have the c h e m i s t p r e p a r e a purely provisional s e t of c l a i m s f o r the patent application, but generally speaking t h i s is t r u e the c h e m i s t a l r e a d y has had considonly e r a b l e training i n drafting c l a i m s under the l a w y e r ' s guidance. In f a c t , all of t h e s e things a r e to be done under the careful supervision of the patent lawyer who of c o u r s e will not h e s i t a t e to "blue pencil" the work of the c h e m i s t (much to the l a t t e r ' s d i s t r e s s , of c o u r s e ) when and as he d e e m s i t n e c e s s a r y in the i n t e r e s t of the client's c a s e , f o r it m u s t be kept f o r e m o s t i n mind that it is the patent lawyer , and the patent lawyer alone, who m u s t bear the ultimate responsibility to the clientfor doing everything p r o p e r and n e c e s s a r y to p r e s e n t the application f o r the invention in the best possible light. Having done all t h e s e things, the c h e m i s t ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the invention then is reworked carefully by the patent lawyer to whatever extent may i n his opinion be n e c e s s a r y ; the provisional s e t of c l a i m s is r e v i s e d with e v e n g r e a t e r c a r e u n l e s s , as may be the c a s e , the lawyer p r e f e r s or finds i t n e c e s s a r y to himself p r e p a r e the c l a i m s ; the f o r m a l application p a p e r s a r e p r e pared; the application is executed by the inventor or inventors and is then without f u r t h e r change placed on file in the Patent Office. At this point, as m o s t of you may a l r e a d y know, the inventor's (and patent l a w y e r ' s ) t r o u b l e s only begin because the application m u s t then be
after
31
PATENT BACKGROUND AND CHEMICAL PROPRIETORSHIP
p r o s e c u t e d through the Patent Office. In a highly developed o r rapidly developing a r t t h i s g e n e r ally c r e a t e s new and i n t r i c a t e p r o b l e m s by r e a s o n of the P a t e n t E x a m i n e r ' s c i t a t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e o r patent r e f e r e n c e which h e r e g a r d s a s m o r e o r l e s s clo,sely r e l a t e d to the invention i n question and m o s t patent l a w y e r s will a g r e e with m e , I think, when I s a y t h a t t h e m o r e imp o r t a n t the invention is t o t h e c l i e n t , the c l o s e r the r e f e r e n c e s will be. P e r h a p s s o m e s t u d e n t of P a r k i n s o n will one day be able t o w o r k out the p r e c i s e m a t h e m a t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p h e r e t h a t any good patent l a w y e r s e n s e s i n s t i n c t i v e l y . Again, the c h e m i s t is i n a position t o a s s i s t the patent l a w y e r . The c h e m i s t m a y m a k e a t e c h n i c a l a n a l y s i s of the c i t e d r e f e r e n c e s i n r e l a t i o n t o the invention being claimed; h e m a y s u g g e s t ways i n which t o a r g u e the non-pertinency of the r e f e r e n c e s ; he m a y s u g g e s t c o m p a r a t i v e e x p e r i m e n t s t h a t might profitably be p e r f o r m e d i n the l a b o r a t o r y of the c l i e n t o r of a n o u t s i d e consultant i n o r d e r t o provide " a m munition" f o r USE' i n the P a t e n t Office; he m a y m a k e p r o v i s i o n a l suggestions f o r modification of the c l a i m s i n o r d e r b e t t e r t o d i s t i n g u i s h o v e r the c i t e d r e f e r e n c e s ; a n d f i n a l l y , he m a y d r a f t a p r o v i s i o n a l r e p l y to the Patent Office i n c o r porating a r g u m e n t s f o r patentability o v e r the references. S i m i l a r t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e can be given the patent l a w y e r i n connection with proceedings a t a l l s t a g e s of prosecution of the patent a p p l i c a t i o n , including appeals to t h e Board of App e a l s , i n t e r f e r e n c e s with patent applications of o t h e r i n v e n t o r s , and i n appeals o r proceedings i n the n a t u r e of appeals f r o m t h e P a t e n t Office t o the C o u r t s . A s b e f o r e , any o r all of t h e s e things will be done under t h e ca.reful s u p e r v i s i o n of the patent l a w y e r , who of c c u r s e m u s t r e m a i n the f i n a l a r b i t e r of what i s submitted t o t h e t r i b u n a l i n question. Mention m u s t a l s o be m a d e , f o r the s a k e of c o m p l e t e n e s s , of valuable a s s i s t a n c e t h a t t h e c h e m i s t can r e n d e r the patent l a w y e r i n connection with m a t t ' e r s o t h e r than d i r e c t Patent Office proceedings. M o s t i m p o r t a n t h e r e a r e civil a c t i o n s i n the F e d e r a l C o u r t s involving c o n t r o v e r s i e s o v e r the infringement or a l l e g e d infringement of i s s u e d p a t e n t s . The c h e m i s t c a n and does r e n d e r valuable a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e patent l a w y e r i n suggesting s t r a t e g y (or a t l e a s t t a c t i c s ) u s e f u l i n offense o r defense of t h e c a s e , including the outlining of t h e type of testimony p r e s u m a b l y ( o r hopefully) a v a i l a b l e f r o m o r through o n e ' s own e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s a t t h e t r i a l , l i n e s of questioning f o r opposing f a c t w i t n e s s e s during the p r e l i m i n a r y or p r e - t r i a l s t a g e s of the c a s e , l i n e s of questioning f o r u s e a g a i n s t crosst h e opponent's w i t n e s s e s at t h e trial (k., examination), and p e r h a p s above all, i n s c r e e n i n g t h e s o m e t i m e s voluminous d o c u m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l produced by the opponents during the s o - c a l l e d
-
d i s c o v e r y proceedings i n the e a r l y s t a g e s of the c a s e . H e r e , a s b e f o r e , the value of the c h e m i s t ' s a s s i s t a n c e to the patent lawyer will obviously depend l a r g e l y upon the extent of h i s t r a i n i n g f o r the p a r t i c u l a r t a s k . T i m e does not p e r m i t us t o p a r t i c u l a r i z e all the many o t h e r ways i n which the c h e m i s t c a n assist t h e patent a t t o r n e y , but we m u s t mention the i m p o r t a n t function of s e a r c h i n g . Broadly s p e a k i n g , t h e r e a r e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t kinds of ordinaky s e a r c h e s : ( 1 ) a s h o r t p r e l i m i n a r y novelty s e a r c h , generally called a I'pre-ex," m a d e f o r the purpose of t u r n i n g up the most' r e a d i l y available p r i o r a r t generally U . S . patented a r t i n r e l a t i o n to a supposed i n vention on which i t i s proposed to f i l e a patent a p p l i c a t i o n , ( 2 ) a n extended patentabillty s e a r c h m a d e i n r e l a t i o n t o the c l a i m s of a n i s s u e d pate n t belonging to the c l i e n t ' s competitor and f r o m which s o m e difficulty or t h r e a t m a y be e x p e c t e d , and ( 3 ) a n infringement s e a r c h to d e t e r m i n e whether t h e a p p a r a t u s or p r o c e s s o r composition t h a t the client wishes t o m a k e or u s e or s e l l i n f r i n g e s anyone e l s e ' s patent. Obviously, s e a r c h (1) m a y be extended indefinitely i f the i m p o r t a n c e of the invention w a r r a n t s doing s o . S e a r c h ( 2 ) is a l s o c a l l e d a "patent validity s e a r c h . " S e a r c h ( 1 ) and s e a r c h ( 2 ) a r e m a d e i n the l i t e r a t u r e , including patents of any country and any a g e . S e a r c h ( 3 ) is of a n e n t i r e l y different type and is confined t o l i v e U . S . patents,&., U . S. p a t e n t s granted within the l a s t seventeen y e a r s , s i n c e obviously only a live U . S . patent has any p o s s i b i l i t y of being infringed in thp U . S . A f o u r t h kind of s e a r c h might be mentioned i n p a s s i n g , w h i c h m i g h t be c a l l e d a s t a t e - o f - t h e a r t s e a r c h m a d e f o r planning p u r p o s e s , e.g., by a d i r e c t o r of r e s e a r c h who is about to m y o u t a p r o g r a m of c o m m e r c i a l r e s e a r c h and developm e n t and who t h e r e f o r e w i s h e s to know, i n a d vance of any a c t u a l expensive l a b o r a t o r y w o r k , j u s t w h e r e the "holes" i n the a r t a r e a n d / o r what h i s company would be f r e e t o do i n t h e way of manufacture and s a l e i n t h e , e v e n t h i s proposed p r o g r a m of r e s e a r c h shouId t u r n out t o give c o m m e r c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e r e s u l t s , We hope we have m a d e i t a p p a r e n t w h e r e i n t h e c h e m i s t m a y indeed r e n d e r exceedingly valuable a s s i s t a n c e t o the c h e m i c a l patent l a w y e r . In c l o s i n g , one word of caution may be i n o r d e r . To you c h e m i s t s who m a y be c a l l e d upon t o engage i n t h i s kind of w o r k , we believe you will find i t quite i r r e s i s t a b l e s o t h a t u l t i m a t e l y you might v e r y well f a c e the p r o s p e c t of l o s i n g your s t a t u s as a "pure" c h e m i s t and joining the g r o u p of t h o s e t e c h n i c a l people who have been won o v e r to that j e a l o u s m i s t r e s s , the l a w . If you f e a r t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , you should end e a v o r t o f i n d s o m e U l y s s e s who will kindly l a s h you t o t h e m a s t s o t h a t you m a y b e t t e r r e s i s t the S i r e n s ' c a l l . You cannot now s a y t h a t you have not been f o r e w a r n e d .
--
-
