Chemical Education Today
From Past Issues
Recent Chemical Patents or What Else Is New? by Kathryn R. Williams
In February 1944, the Journal of Chemical Education initiated a new feature, “Recent Chemical Patents”. Its editor, Patent Examiner William S. Hill, intended “to review regularly in this column some of the recent chemical patents which may be of interest in the field of chemical education” (1). He must have meant education in the broad sense, because I doubt the hydrogenation of ketones, separation and recovery of potassium chloride and borax, or the industrial synthesis of aliphatic aldehydes would have appealed to many undergraduates. On the other hand, the feature also summarized some patents of general interest, such as an air freshener and a new sunburn preventive. The column appeared regularly during 1944 and the first half of 1945. A few items of interest included use of diiodotyrosine as an X-ray contrast agent (2), a vinyl resin phonograph record (2), processing fish livers to extract vitamins A and D (3), a method for defeathering poultry (4), and the pipetting device shown in the figure (5). The final appearance of the feature occurred without a termination announcement in June 1945. The patent system was a common topic in the Journal’s first quarter-century (1924–1949). In 1929, Van Doren wrote a three-part series on “What the Chemistry Student Should Know about the Patent Procedure”, including a brief history of patenting (6), a description of patent office organization (7), and an overview of the application process (8). At the outset, Van Doren expressed his intention that from the series “the student of chemistry will acquire at least a somewhat fuller knowledge of chemical patents and the procedure in accordance with which they are granted” (6). Just three years later, Rossman reemphasized the need for greater familiarity with the patent process in “What the Chemist Should Know about Patents”, a shortened rehash of the material presented by Van Doren (9). Reading the Van Doren and Rossman publications, I gained a deeper understanding of the growing importance of the U.S. chemical industry in the period between the two world wars. Aside from Elizabeth Hunter’s 1939 contribution encouraging women with technical degrees to pursue careers in patent law (10), the topic did not appear in the Journal for the rest of that decade. But the 1940s saw a significant resurgence of interest in the patent process. Part of this interest resulted from the burst of scientific activity in support of the war effort. However, the primary reason stemmed from the publicity about proposed changes to the patent laws at that time. For example, in his description of lectures on patent law at Manhattan College, William O’Connor wrote, “In the various scientific and trade journals, papers on patent law are appearing so frequently that one may well ask the question: ‘Why did we not hear more about patent law in school?’” (11). Several articles from the 1940s focused on the relationship of patents to the scientific literature, both in the steps leading
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
Pipetting Device (Patent 2339870). J. Chem. Educ. 1944, 21, 228.
to patent application (12, 13) and in the use of patents as information resources (14–17). Considering how rapidly we can search and access the literature today, these descriptions of classification methods (15, 16), use of subject indexes (13), and 5 in. ⫻ 8 in. card files (14) serve as reminders that not too long ago information storage and retrieval were onerous tasks. In terms of numbers of JCE papers on the patent system, Volume 21 (1944) clearly takes first place, even without including Hill’s monthly feature described above. At that time, court decisions and reversals and other negative publicity pointed to numerous problems with the patent system and its possible abatement by Congress. Articles in JCE made reference to these rumblings, but also attempted to reassure readers of the importance of patents in chemistry. In June 1944, C. B. Hollabaugh encouraged chemists to specialize in the patent area, stating that “in many phases of patent work strong training in chemistry offsets [lack of ] legal training” (18). The following month, Hollabaugh contributed a lengthier paper describing the steps in the patenting process (19). His introductory paragraphs reaffirmed the role of patents in protecting the fruits of research, especially in light of the war effort, “by providing a mechanism for companies to exchange information freely without entirely losing the research expenditure involved”.
Vol. 83 No. 5 May 2006
•
Journal of Chemical Education
687
Chemical Education Today
From Past Issues Aside from his monthly feature, William S. Hill wrote three regular articles for the 1944 Journal. Coincident with the inauguration of “Recent Chemical Patents”, the Journal published “Getting It Patented” (20), which provided another overview of patent history, essentially a summary of the July 1936 issue of the Journal of the Patent Office Society commemorating the centennial of the Patent Act of 1836 (21). Hill’s May 1944 contribution, “The Chemist and the Patent” (22), described a typical patent document. This article did not interest me very much, but I did find Hill’s third paper, “Some Recent Trends in the United States Patent System”, to be informative, especially regarding problems with the patent system and legislation to correct them (23). Two of these concerns involved the “twenty-year bill” and the need for a single court of patent appeals. The former would restrict the time between filing a patent application and expiration of the patent to 20 years. The measure attempted to curb unethical delaying of an application, thus keeping the patent pending (and the market cornered) for excessive periods of time. A single court of patent appeals was needed to assure uniform legal standards and to keep large corporations from overwhelming an individual inventor with endless court suits. Frustrations about court decisions continued after the end of the war. In 1946, I. J. Fellner described ambiguous (and often contradictory) interpretations of “invention” in relation to chemical substances (24). Rivise and Caesar presented another litany of court decisions and observed that, “In no other field have the effects of the changed judicial attitude toward patents and patentees manifested themselves to a greater degree than in that of chemical inventions” (25). After 1950, the patent system became a much less popular topic in JCE and, aside from a patent-based laboratory experiment (26), an online search with “patent” in the title field yielded no contributions since 1971. Most of the post1950 papers dealt with the language of patents, both English and foreign (27, 28), or patent searches (29), but three authors (30–32) repeated the pleas of earlier decades to include patent law in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum. Reading these papers made me skeptical of the Journal’s diligence in screening papers for novelty and/or proper referencing at that time. In particular, I note Calvert’s “What the Chemistry Teacher Should Know About Patents” (32), which contains yet another summary of patent history and procedures. Even the title is remarkably similar to those used by Van Doren and Rossman (6–9), although neither author is referenced. Like those before him, Calvert quoted the Article 1 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries” (33). Why did someone writing on the privileges accorded to inventors and authors have so little regard for the works previously published by others? After reading the contributions in JCE, I can’t pretend that the patent process makes for page-turning literature, but the historical aspects are quite interesting. Instead of the partially digested versions in JCE articles, I recommend the more
688
Journal of Chemical Education
•
It may seem a bit inconsistent and paradoxical to state that the field of invention becomes wider as the number of inventions in that field increases. … However, each invention disclosed, in the same way as each piece of research undertaken and disclosed to the world, makes possible the disclosure of several additional inventions, so that which is apparently a paradox is rather a reality (6).
in-depth online histories (21, 34). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Web site (35) contains links to all current forms, guides, and procedures, and the kid’s pages (36) offer games, free downloads, and other resources for students of all ages. I especially advise having your students and children click “Stop Piracy” for a few lessons on infringement of intellectual property rights. Be sure to read it yourself, too. Literature Cited 1. Hill, William S. Recent Chemical Patents. J. Chem. Educ. 1944, 21, 67–68. 2. Hill, William S. Recent Chemical Patents. J. Chem. Educ. 1944, 21, 109–110. 3. Hill, William S. Recent Chemical Patents. J. Chem. Educ. 1944, 21, 289–290. 4. Hill, William S. Recent Chemical Patents. J. Chem. Educ. 1944, 21, 557–559. 5. Hill, William S. Recent Chemical Patents. J. Chem. Educ. 1944, 21, 228–230. 6. Van Doren, Lloyd. What the Chemistry Student Should Know about Patent Procedure. I. Development of Our Patent System. J. Chem. Educ. 1929, 6, 123–128. 7. Van Doren, Lloyd. What the Chemistry Student Should Know about Patent Procedure. II. Organization of the Patent Office. J. Chem. Educ. 1929, 6, 536–540. 8. Van Doren, Lloyd. What the Chemistry Student Should Know about Patent Procedure. III. Preparation of the Application. J. Chem. Educ. 1929, 6, 966–972. 9. Rossman, Joseph. What the Chemist Should Know about Patents. J. Chem. Educ. 1932, 9, 486–489. 10. Hunter, Elizabeth. Women As Patent Attorneys. J. Chem. Educ. 1939, 16, 589–590. 11. O’Connor, William F. Let’s Get Acquainted with Patent Law. J. Chem. Educ. 1941, 18, 62–64. 12. Culhane, Paul J. The Importance of Scientific Literature in Patent Applications. J. Chem. Educ. 1943, 20, 601–602.
Vol. 83 No. 5 May 2006
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
Chemical Education Today
13. Hoffman, Thelma. Techniques Employed in Making Literature Searches for a Patent Department. J. Chem. Educ. 1947, 24, 546–549, 555. 14. Smith, Wilfred W. Patent Service; An Arm of Research. J. Chem. Educ. 1943, 20, 602–604. 15. Ooms, Casper W. The American Patent System. J. Chem. Educ. 1946, 23, 478–481. 16. Rosa, Manuel C. Problems of Classifying Chemical Patents. J. Chem. Educ. 1947, 24, 93–98. 17. Payne, Nellie M. Patent Terms in Some Languages Other Than English. J. Chem. Educ. 1948, 25, 389–390. 18. Hollabaugh, C. B. Patent Work as a Field for Chemists. J. Chem. Educ. 1944, 21, 276–278. 19. Hollabaugh, C. B. Protection of the Results of Chemical Research. J. Chem. Educ. 1944, 21, 321–325. 20. Hill, William S. Getting It Patented. J. Chem. Educ. 1944, 21, 75–80. 21. Federico, P. J., Ed. Outline of the History of the United States Patent Office. J. Patent Off. Soc. 1936, 18 (7), 3–234. 22. Hill, William S. The Chemist and the Patent. J. Chem. Educ. 1944, 21, 225–227. 23. Hill, William S. Some Recent Trends in the United States Patent System. J. Chem. Educ. 1944, 21, 354–358. 24. Fellner, I. J. Patentability of Organic Compounds. J. Chem. Educ. 1946, 23, 555–558. 25. Rivise, Charles W.; Caesar, A. D. Patentable Chemical Inventions. J. Chem. Educ. 1948, 25, 434–438.
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
26. Osterby, Bruce; McKelvey, Ronald; Hill, Lisa. Photochromic Sunglasses: A Patent-Based Advanced Organic Synthesis Project and Demonstration. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 424–425. 27. Smith, Julian F.; Singer, T. E. R. Translating Foreign-Language Patents. J. Chem. Educ. 1955, 32, 461–462. 28. Singer, T. E. R.; Smith, Julian F. Patentese: A Dialect of English? J. Chem. Educ. 1967, 44, 111–112. 29. Premo, J. G. A Simplified Procedure for Searching United States Chemical Patents. J. Chem. Educ. 1958, 35, 353. 30. Emling, Bertin L. A Patent Assignment. J. Chem. Educ. 1951, 28, 133. 31. Schwartz, James H. What Has Been Published?—More Patents Than Journal Literature. J. Chem. Educ. 1976, 53, 57. 32. Calvert, Robert. What the Chemistry Teacher Should Know about Patents. J. Chem. Educ. 1951, 28, 588–590. 33. U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. 34. Dobyns, Kenneth W. The Patent Office Pony: A History of the Early Patent Office. http://www.myoutbox.net/pohome.htm (accessed Jan 2006). 35. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. http://www.uspto.gov/ (accessed Jan 2006). 36. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. http://www.uspto.gov/web/ offices/ac/ahrpa/opa/kids/index.html (accessed Jan 2006).
Kathryn R. Williams is in the Department of Chemistry, University of Florida, PO Box 117200, Gainesville, FL 326117200;
[email protected] Vol. 83 No. 5 May 2006
•
Journal of Chemical Education
689
