HOW CAN THE CHEMIST HELP THE PATENT LAWYER: THE PATENT OFFICE VIEW* By J. SCHIMMEL
US. Department of Commerce, Patent Office, Washington, D.C.
obligation of p r e s e n t i n g what in h i s opinion is a f u l l , c l e a r , e x a c t and concise d e s c r i p t i o n of the invention, and on the o t h e r hand, the P a t e n t Office h a s the difficult t a s k of d e t e r m i n i n g whether the s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s have been m e t . Under our s y s t e m , s i n c e the P a t e n t Office is the agency through which p a t e n t s a r e brought into being, it h a s the two-fold r e s p o n s i bility, f i r s t , a s the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the public, of i n s u r i n g that the d i s c l o s u r e is full and c o m p l e t e , and second of doing j u s t i c e to the applicant t o s e e that he x e c e i v e s a patent on e v e r y thing t o which he is justly e n t i t l e d . In c h e m i c a l inventions, the c o r e of the p r o b l e m and the u s u a l a r e a of dispute between the applicant and the P a t e n t Office r e v o l v e s around the difficulty of d e t e r m i n i n g and a g r e e i n g in any p a r t i c u l a r c a s e on whether the d i s c l o s u r e of the invention is as complete a s i t could be or should be, and whether the c l a i m s sought, which c l a i m s a r e t h e m e a s u r e of the invention, a r e no b r o a d e r t h a n the d i s c l o s e d invention and no b r o a d e r t h a n the applicant is r e a s o n a b l y entitled to. To m a k e t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n the P a t e n t Office is staffed with e x a m i n e r s having a n educational background in c h e m i s t r y . While m o s t have a t l e a s t a b a c h e l o r s d e g r e e i n c h e m i s t r y or c h e m i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g t h e r e a r e s o m e who have m a s t e r s d e g r e e s and a few d o c t o r a t e s . The p r o b l e m of staffing the P a t e n t Office with e x p e r t s in the v a r i o u s c h e m i c a l f i e l d s h a s bec o m e m o r e difficult as the r a t e a t which c h e m i c a l knowledge expands h a s i n c r e a s e d and s u c h knowledge h a s become m o r e complex. If t o t h i s p r o b l e m i s added t h e p r o b l e m of t u r n o v e r in personnel f o r the P a t e n t Office is a m o s t i m p o r t a n t t r a i n i n g ground f o r f u t u r e patent a t t o r n e y s , you m a y gain s o m e a p p r e c i a t i o n of t h e difficulties involved in t r y i n g t o solve r e a sonably the p r o b l e m of adequacy of d i s c l o s u r e . I believe that one cannot r e a d the wording of the law without a p p r e c i a t i n g t h a t s t r o n g language h a s been u s e d f o r the p u r p o s e of c o m pelling complete d i s c l o s u r e . That wording c a l l s f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n i n " f u l l , c l e a r , c o n c i s e and e x a c t t e r m s , " and f o r "the b e s t mode" c o n t e m plated by the inventor of c a r r y i n g out h i s i n vention. The language s e e m s t o be c l e a r and unambiguous. Unfortunately, however, t h e r e a r e a sufficient n u m b e r of people, who f o r r e a s o n s b e s t known t o t h e m s e l v e s , fail to m a k e a f u l l d i s c l o s u r e or d e s c r i b e the "best mode." T h e s e people s e e k t o get by with the m i n i m u m d i s c l o s u r e , In the public i n t e r e s t , it is t h e duty of the P a t e n t Office t o g u a r d a g a i n s t s u c h d i s c l o s u r e s , and as I indicated p r e v i o u s l y , t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s one of o u r m o s t perplexing p r o b l e m s .
The o t h e r m e m b e r s of t h i s panel, who r e p r e s e n t both the c h e m i c a l i n d u s t r y and the p r i vate patent a t t o r n e y will explain how the c h e m i s t c a n h e l p the patent l a w y e r e i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r through a l i a i s o n c h e m i s t to u s e m o r e efficently the l i m i t e d t i m e available t o h i m f o r m u t u a l advantage and the advantage of those who pay f o r r e s e a r c h in the f i e l d of c h e m i s t r y . My objective i s to p r e s e n t the viewpoint of the P a t e n t Office and to t r y to show not only how we can work t o g e t h e r f o r o u r mutual advantage but a l s o how a s m e m b e r s of the public, individually and collectively, the c h e m i s t can h e l p to advance the g r a n d objective of the patent system, Our patent s y s t e m is based upon and built around 32 w o r d s in Section 8 of A r t i c l e 1 of the Constitution. T h i s s e c t i o n c o n f e r s on C o n g r e s s the power to g r a n t copyrights and p a t e n t s , and the d e c l a r e d p u r p o s e of the s e c t i o n is "to p r o m o t e the p r o g r e s s of s c i e n c e and the useful a r t s " . To do s o i t e m p o w e r s C o n g r e s s to s e c u r e t o a u t h o r s and i n v e n t o r s f o r a l i m i t e d t i m e the exclusive r i g h t to t h e i r d i s c o v e r i e s o r inventions. With r e s p e c t t o patents C o n g r e s s e x e r c i s e d t h a t power by enacting the First P a t e n t A c t , of 1790. In o r d e r to i n s u r e compliance with the Constitutional objective or p u r p o s e C o n g r e s s s e t f o r t h a fundamental concept which h a s c o m e down through the y e a r s , s u b s t a n t i a l l y unchanged, into the l a t e s t P a t e n t Act of 195.2. That conc e p t i s t h a t in r e t u r n f o r a full and complete d i s c l o s u r e of a new and useful invention, the F e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t g r a n t s t o the inventor t h e r i g h t t o exclude o t h e r s f r o m m'aking, using or s e l l i n g the invention. In t h i s s c h e m e i t is e x - . ceedingly i m p o r t a n t to note t h a t the p a r a m o u n t p u r p o s e is the p r o m o t i o n of s c i e n c e and the useful a r t s , and t h a t the r e w a r d t o the inventor by way of a patent g r a n t is s e c o n d a r y and i n cidental t o the p a r a m o u n t p u r p o s e . And t o i n s u r e t h a t the fundamental concept is achieved C o n g r e s s c a s t upon the P a t e n t Office the duty of examining patent applications t o d e t e r m i n e w h e i h e r a n applicant is entitled t o a patent u n d e r t h e l a w including in the r e q u i r e m e n t s t h a t applicants provide a d i s c l o s u r e or d e s c r i p t i o n of the invention consonant with t h a t concept. In the day-by-day a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e P a t e n t Office one of the m o s t perplexing p r o b l e m s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in the f i e l d of c h e m i s t r y , is t o d e t e r m i n e what c o n s t i t u t e s a p r o p e r d i s c l o s u r e under the l a w , and how t o define the a r e a f r o m which all o t h e r s a r e t o be excluded. On one hand, the applicant is c h a r g e d with t h e
-
*Presqxed before the Division of Chemical Literature, ACS National Meeting, New York, N.Y., September 12, 1960.
32
THE P A T E N T O F F I C E AND THE P A T E N T LAWYER
It is in t h i s a r e a t h a t you, as c h e m i s t s , c a n assist the patent a t t o r n e y t o the mutual advantage of a l l c o n c e r n e d . First, i t m u s t be r e m e m b e r e d t h a t d e s c r i p t i o n s i n p a t e n t s and p a t e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e not a d d r e s s e d t o the public g e n e r a l l y , but t o t h o s e of o r d i n a r y s k i l l i n the art t o which t h e invention p e r t a i n s ; s e c o n d , t h a t t h e d i v e r s e f a c t s i t u a t i o n s , i n h e r e n t i n c h e m i c a l inventions, m a k e it n e c e s s a r y t o e s c h e w g e n e r a l i t i e s a n d t o c o n s i d e r e a c h c a s e on a n individual b a s i s ; and t h i r d t h a t it is u n n e c e s s a r y t o s e t f o r t h m i n u t i a e of p r o c e d u r e s p e r f e c t l y obvious t o t h o s e s k i l l e d i n the a r t . With t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s i n m i n d , i t should be evident t h a t t h e r e is no h a r d and fast r u l e as t o what c o n s t i t u t e s a f u l l and c o m p l e t e d i s c l o s u r e , and c(omp1iance with the r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e l a w should not p r e s e n t any g r e a t diffic u l t i e s t o a n inventor who knows what h i s i n vention is, how he: m a d e it, and what i t c a n be used f o r . In m a n y i n s t a n c e s the key t o t h e d i s c l o s u r e l i e s i n the m e a n i n g of t e r m s u s e d . C o n s i d e r a b l e l a t i t u d e is p e r m i t t e d i n t h e s e l e c t i o n of t e r m s , and i n the definition t h e r e o f , e x c e p t t h a t the definition cannot be i n c o n s i s t e n t with o r c o n t r a r y t o the c o m m o n o r t e c h n i c a l m e a n i n g of the t e r m . Unduly b r o a d t e r m s m u s t be u s e d with c a r e . It should be evident t h a t in t h i s a s p e c t of t h e d i s c l o s u r e t h e t e c h n i c a l m a n c a n be of valuable a s s i s t a n c e to t h e p a t e n t a t t o r n e y . A w o r d of caution, h o w e v e r , is n e c e s s a r y h e r e , b e c a u s e when a t e r m o r definition is u s e d , the applicant o r patentee i s bound t h e r e b y . It a l s o should be evident t h a t w h e r e p r o p o r t i o n s a r e n e c e s s a r y t o t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t of a p a r t i c u l a r effect they should be d i s c l o s e d , a n d t h a t w h e r e t e m p e r a t u r e s , p r e s s u r e s , pH value o r o t h e r o p e r a t i o n a l condition is the inventive c o n t r i b u t i o n , the m e r e suggestion to use heat o r super-atmospheric p r e s s u r e or a c i d i c conditions is not t h e f u l l and c o m p l e t e d i s c l o s u r e r e q u i r e d by l a w . In t h i s connection i t should not be f o r g o t t e n t h a t the a p p l i c a n t is r e q u i r e d t o s e t f o r t h "the b e s t mode" i n which h e found f o r c a r r y i n g out h i s invention. C l e a r l y t h i s woulld m e a n a t l e a s t one s p e c i f i c e x a m p l e in which p r o p o r t i o n s , t e m p e r a t u r e , p r e s s u r e and pH v a l u e would be s p e l l e d out i n d e t a i l . Though i t m i g h t be p o s s i b l e f o r y o u , as a c h e m i s t , t o preldict what o t h e r o p e r a t i n g conditions could be u s e d , s e l f - i n t e r e s t alone would s e e m t o d i c t a t e additional d i s c l o s u r e t o e s t a b l i s h t h e l i m i t s of o p e r a b i l i t y , and the n e c e s s a r y f a c t u a l d a t a t o prlove s u c h l i m i t s . A p a r t f r o m the m a t t e r of s e l f - i n t e r e s t I might add t h a t it is c o n s i d e r e d h a r m f u l t o the public i n t e r e s t if a n a p p l i c a n t who m a d e only a s p e c i f i c d i s c l o s u r e w e r e p e r m i t t e d on t h e s t r e n g t h of s u c h d i s c l o s u r e to a s s e r t c l a i m s of m u c h g r e a t e r s c o p e o n the t h e o r y of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y . A full and c o m p l e t e d i s c l o s u r e should be one which contains sufficient d e t a i l t h a t anyone could duplicate the r e s u l t s without having t o add to o r s u b t r a c t f r o m t h e disclosure.
33
F u r t h e r m o r e , the c h e m i s t m a y be c a l l e d upon t o i n t e r p r e t and evaluate d i s c l o s u r e s of p r i o r p a t e n t s and publications. H e r e too the d a t a n e c e s s a r y t o prove o r d i s p r o v e the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n placed t h e r e o n , should be full and c o m p l e t e . Only by c o o p e r a t i o n between the t e c h n i c a l people who supply the n e c e s s a r y t e c h n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n , and t h e patent a t t o r n e y , who p r e s e n t s s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n in p r o p e r f o r m t o the P a t e n t Office, c a n we a c h i e v e the c o n t r i butions t o the patent s y s t e m of the c h a r a c t e r and type t o m a k e t h e p r o g r e s s i n t h e s c i e n c e s and useful arts envisioned by the f r a m e r s of t h e Constitution. As indicated by L. D. Dibble (p. ), the f i e l d of p h a r m a c e u t i c a l t h e m i s t r y m a y be cons i d e r e d a s p e c i a l t y within a s p e c i a l t y . Applic a t i o n s f o r p a t e n t s in t h i s f i e l d p r e s e n t additional p r o b l e m s , which a r e m o r e difficult t o r e s o l v e t h a n i n the g e n e r a l c h e m i c a l f i e l d , f o r in t h e s e applications t h e r e is often the a s s e r t i o n of u s e f u l n e s s i n c u r i n g o r alleviating m a n y of m a n ' s ills. Since the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of w h e t h e r a patent should be g r a n t e d f r e q u e n t l y depends upon the validity of t h e s e a s s e r t i o n s , t h e p r o b l e m is t o k e e p t h e s e a s s e r t i o n s within provable l i m i t s o r t o p r o v e t o the s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e P a t e n t Office t h a t t h e a s s e r t i o n s a r e well founded. T h e r e f o r e , i n t h i s f i e l d , the c h e m i s t should be s u r e t h a t the d i s c l o s u r e contains only t h o s e a s s e r t i o n s which he knows a r e t r u e and should s u b m i t the proof thereof t o the patent a t t o r n e y f o r inclusion i n the application. In conclusion, m a y I point out as did E . H. Mosher (p. ), t h a t a patent is a c o n t r a c t bet w e e n the people of the United S t a t e s , r e p r e s e n t e d by the P a t e n t Office, and the i n v e n t o r , i n which t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n flowing f r o m the inventor is a f u l l , c l e a r and e x a c t d i s c l o s u r e of a new and useful invention. The patent r e p r e s e n t s not only d o c u m e n t a r y proof of the c o n t r a c t , but a l s o a valuable contribution t o the t e c h n i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . Patents-and t h e r e a r e now a l m o s t 3,000,000d e s c r i b e the technological d e v e l o p m e n t s i n a d e g r e e of d e t a i l which d o e s not e x i s t e l s e w h e r e i n t h e w o r l d . A r r a n g e d by t e c h n i c a l s u b j e c t m a t t e r - c o n s t i t u t i n g 36,000,000 pages i n 350 m a i n c l a s s e s and 56,000 s u b - c l a s s e s - t h e y cons t i t u t e a valuable tool f o r u s e by t h o s e i n r e s e a r c h and d e v e l o p m e n t . The i m p o r t a n c e of p r e s e n t i n g the c o m p l e t e s t o r y i n c e r t a i n t e r m s , s o t h a t i t s m e a n i n g is c l e a r , cannot be o v e r e m p h a s i z e d . As c h e m i s t - i n v e n t o r s in y o u r own r i g h t o r as a i d e s t o a c o r p o r a t e patent att o r n e y , you owe i t to y o u r s e l v e s , to y o u r e m p l o y e r , and t o t h e public to be e v e r a l e r t t o the f u n d a m e n t a l concept of o u r patent s y s t e m f o r a f u l l and c o m p l e t e d i s c l o s u r e . To t h e extent t h a t you do y o u r p a r t i n inducing a flow of s u c h d i s c l o s u r e s , you will have contributed m u c h t o the g r a n d objective of the patent s y s t e m , n a m e l y , "to p r o m o t e the p r o g r e s s of s c i e n c e and useful a r t s .I(
