13 The Role of Patent Liaison in the Protection of Intellectual Property
Downloaded by NATL UNIV OF SINGAPORE on May 6, 2018 | https://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: June 1, 1978 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1978-0081.ch013
DONALD R. SCHULTZ and J. WADE VAN VALKENBURG 3M Company, Central Research Laboratories, P. O. Box 33221, St. Paul, MN 55133
Is it possible for a s c i e n t i f i c a l l y trained inventor and a legally trained patent attorney to combine forces to write and prosecute a viable patent application? With the difference in educational backgrounds of these two people, do they speak and understand the same language? Are there barriers to communication? Are there problems? The Supreme Court, as long ago as 1892, signaled the existence of a problem when they stated (1): "The specification and claims of a patent, particularly if the invention be at all complicated, constitute one of the most d i f f i c u l t legal instruments to draw with accuracy; and in view of the fact that valuable inventions are often placed in the hands of inexperienced persons to prepare such specifications and claims, it i s no matter of surprise that the latter frequently f a i l to describe with requisite certainty the exact invention of the patentee, and err either in claiming that which the patentee had not in fact invented, or in omitting some element which was a valuable or essential part of his actual invention." Was the problem alluded to by the Court p a r t i a l l y a problem of communication? Some time ago, at a seminar on patents conducted by patent attorneys and attended by scientists, a young scientist asked the question: "Why aren't patent claims written in understandable English?" A senior attorney succinctly replied, "They are!" Now i t begins to sound as ' i f there is a communication problem. But, i s the communication problem just between the patent attorney and the scientist? Consider the following statement by the late Judge Smith, Associate Justice of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (2): "Those who may be called upon to adjudicate the v a l i d i t y of the patent granted thereon for the most part are nontechnically trained." A burden i s created on both the attorney and the inventor to write a patent application in language which i s legally and technically sound, yet of ultimate c l a r i t y to the "non-technical" audience. To lighten this burden, we recommend the incorporation 0-8412-0454-3/78/47-081-131$05.00/0 © 1978 American Chemical Society Marcy; Patent Policy ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1978.
132
PATENT POLICY
o f the "Patent L i a i s o n F u n c t i o n " i n t o the system. In developing t h i s p r o p o s a l we w i l l d i c u s s four aspects: 1. The Communication Problem, 2. Why Pursue Patent P r o t e c t i o n ? 3. The Role of Patent L i a i s o n , 4. The Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r Patent L i a i s o n Work.
Downloaded by NATL UNIV OF SINGAPORE on May 6, 2018 | https://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: June 1, 1978 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1978-0081.ch013
1.
The Communication Problem
A s c i e n t i s t , through h i s education and t r a i n i n g , i s taught, yes, even brainwashed, i n t o t h i n k i n g and communicating i n the p a s s i v e v o i c e . T h i s i s a l e a r n e d form of modesty, and when he becomes recognized by h i s p e e r s , he gets a pat on the back. A d d i t i o n a l l y , he i s expected t o be l o g i c a l . A s c i e n t i s t , a f t e r running 23 experiments, i n d e s p e r a t i o n , f i n a l l y p i c k s up some "serendipate" from the s h e l f , and, l o and behold, gets a y i e l d of 86% f o r a new compound t h a t w i l l s o l v e the energy shortage problem. His mind immediately goes to work w i t h computer-like speed, and he s t a t e s t h a t o b v i o u s l y , when one c o n s i d e r s the d o r b i t a l s , the "serendipate" would c a t a l y z e the r e a c t i o n . Such a statement would send i n t o o r b i t any s e l f r e s p e c t i n g patent agent or a t t o r n e y . For the l e g a l mind, the words " o b v i o u s l y , i n h e r e n t l y , t h e o r e t i c a l l y or quantum mechanical model" are enough t o send him home i n a p a r t i c u l a r l y f o u l mood. For the s c i e n t i s t , "whereas, h e r e i n b e f o r e , s a i d , comprising, c o n s i s t i n g e s s e n t i a l l y o f , " and s i m i l a r l e g a l j a r g o n , r a i s e the blood p r e s s u r e . And so, we recognize t h a t c e r t a i n words r a i s e red f l a g s . In comparing the backgrounds and experiences o f lawyers and s c i e n t i s t s , i t appears t h a t most s c i e n t i s t s , e s p e c i a l l y young ones, have l i t t l e or no t r a i n i n g i n patent l i t e r a t u r e , are not aware o f the requirements o f p a t e n t a b i l i t y , nor are they aware o f the r i g h t s c o n f e r r e d by p a t e n t s . On the other hand, although most patent a t t o r n e y s have t e c h n i c a l degrees, very few have p r a c t i c e d as s c i e n t i s t s or engineers p r i o r to becoming a t t o r n e y s . T h e i r primary language and understanding i s the law as opposed to s c i e n c e . Hence, we have the s c i e n t i s t and lawyer, each w i t h d i f f e r e n t backgrounds and languages, t r y i n g to communicate on a common ground. I t i s small wonder that c o n f r o n t a t i o n and confusion f r e q u e n t l y r e s u l t . Probably, the most d i f f i c u l t aspect of patent work f o r the attorney i s s e t t i n g the scope o f an i n v e n t i o n . No s e l f r e s p e c t i n g s c i e n t i s t ever wants to admit t h a t h i s i n v e n t i o n i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t , and so he s t r e t c h e s and s t r e t c h e s , and i n so doing encompasses a l l s o r t s o f p r i o r a r t . P r i o r a r t t o the s c i e n t i s t seems t o be nonexistent unless an experiment i s done p r e c i s e l y as he, h i m s e l f , d i d i t . However, t o the a t t o r n e y , t h a t p r i o r a r t i s most important because he knows what the patent examiner w i l l do with i t . And so, we have another example o f the l a c k o f mutual understanding between the s c i e n t i s t and
Marcy; Patent Policy ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1978.
13.
SCHULTZ AND VAN VALKENBURG
Protection of Intellectual Property
133
Downloaded by NATL UNIV OF SINGAPORE on May 6, 2018 | https://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: June 1, 1978 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1978-0081.ch013
attorney. Now, there are exceptions t o t h i s r u l e . For example, i n those i n d u s t r i e s where a l l patentable matter i s i n one or two areas o f technology, an attorney can s p e c i a l i z e i n these t e c h n o l ogies and l e a r n t o communicate w e l l . But, i n a company t h a t d e a l s w i t h many d i v e r s e t e c h n o l o g i e s , the communication problem between the attorney and s c i e n t i s t can be severe. For example, i n a company such as 3M, patent attorneys and agents i n a s i n g l e year have worked on a p p l i c a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g unique f l u o r o c h e m i c a l s , adhesives, tapes, magnetic m a t e r i a l s , e l e c t r o n beam l a s e r s , copy media, p y r o e l e c t r i c m a t e r i a l s , a b r a s i v e s , ceramic m a t e r i a l s , d e n t a l plaque, F r e s n e l l e n s , r a d i a t i o n s h i e l d s and s o l a r c o l l e c t o r s , to name a few. To expect an attorney t o master the m u l t i p l i c i t y o f s c i e n t i f i c d i s c i p l i n e s and technologies i n v o l v e d i n such d i v e r s e technologies i s a g i g a n t i c burden. 2.
Why
Pursue Patent P r o t e c t i o n ?
L e t us q u i c k l y review the purpose o f a patent. The d e c i s i o n to f i l e and prosecute a patent a p p l i c a t i o n i s a business d e c i s i o n , j u s t as the d e c i s i o n t o conduct r e s e a r c h and development i s a business d e c i s i o n . The s u c c e s s f u l p r o s e c u t i o n r e s u l t s i n a c o n t r a c t between an i n v e n t o r or h i s assignee and a government. T h i s c o n t r a c t i s known as l e t t e r s patent, and i n more p r e c i s e terms: "A patent i s a c o n t r a c t between
