82D CONRESS
`2d Session
`
`S
`
`SENATE
`
`Calendar No. 1908
`
`J
`
`REPORT
`No. 1979
`
`REVISION OF TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE
`
`JUNF, 27, 1952.-Ordered to be printed
`
`Mr. WILEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
`following
`REPORT
`[To accompany HI. R. 7794]
`The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the l)ill
`(II. -R. 7794) to revise, codify, and enact into law title 35 of the United
`States Code entitled "Patents," having considered the same, reports
`favorably thereon, with amendments, and recommends that the bill,
`as amended, do pass.
`
`AMEINDMENTS
`Amendment No. 1: On page 9, line 3 of subdivision (d), section 102,
`strike the word "or" and insert, in lieu thereof the word "on".
`Amendment No. 2: On page 29, subdivision (1) of section 282,
`strike out the word "or" and insert in lieu thereof a comma.
`Amendment No. 3: On page 29, subdivision (1) of section 282,
`st.like out the comma after the word "infringement" and insert in
`lieu thereof "or unenforceability,".
`Amendment No. 4: On page 29, first line of section 284, strike out
`"Upon adjudging a patent' valid and infringed" and insert in lieu
`thereof the following: "Upon. finding for the-claimant".
`PURPOSE
`The purpose of the proposed legislation is to revise and codify the
`laws relating to patents and enact into law title 35 of the United States
`Code entitled "Patents".
`
`STATEMENT
`Hearings were held in the House on H. R. 3760, which dealt with the
`matter of the codification of title 35, and as a result of those hearings
`the bill. was revised and introduced as H. R. 7794.
`This bill is part of the comprehensive program of revising and enact,
`ing into law all the titles of the United States Code. Up to the present
`time 9 out of the 50 titles of the code have been revised and enacted
`into law and consideration or preparation of bills relating to a number
`of additional titles is in process.
`
`S. Repts., 82-2, vol. 4- 29
`
`

`
`2
`
`REVISION OF TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE
`For many years there had been considerable agitation for a complete
`restatement and codification of all the laws of the United States,
`inasmuch as the only such codification--the Revised Statutes of 1874-
`had become generally outmoded on all subjects.
`In 1926, in response to widesl)read recognition of the necel tllerefor,
`and after nearly 7 years' effort, the Congress adopted the United States
`Code, which was a codification of thlc existing general and permanent
`laws of the United States arranged in 50 titles according to subject
`matter, and which was declared to be prima facie evidence of tlhe law.
`Because of the size of that code Congress deci(led that it should
`undergo a testing period before it was enacted into positive law.
`The code has now been subjected to such a testing period lasting
`more than 25 years.
`The present patent laws consist of about 60O sections of the Revised
`Statutes of 1874, together with a large number of acts of Congress
`passed since that date revising various sections of the Revised Statutes
`or making new enactments not related to any section of the Revised
`Statutes.
`Since the sections of the Revised Statutes relating to patents were
`merely a compilation of the act of July 8, 1870, 16 Stat. 198, our
`present patent law is essentially the act of 1370 with subsequent
`amriendatory and supplemental enactments.
`The last general revision of the patent laws was the act of July 8,
`1870, which was enacted as part of a program to revise and con-
`In 1866
`solidate all the laws of the United States then under way.
`Congress passed a law providing for a commission to revise and con-
`Thle Commission which
`solidate tlhe statutes of thle United States.
`was appointed to perform this work prepared a preliminary -draft of
`the part relating to patents and copyrights in 1868, and a second
`preliminary draft in 1869. The following year a draft of the statutes
`relating to patents and-copyrights as revised, simplified, arranged,
`and consolidated by the Commission was reported to Congress, and
`at thle same time referred to the Committee on Patents; a bill was
`introduced by tlhe chairman a few days later.
`Tlie object of the Commission on revision of tlhe laws was only to
`revise, arrange, and consolidate tlie statutes in force and the draft
`reported from the Commission presumably was for this purpose only.
`The probable reason for referring the matter to the Committee on
`Patents was that during this same period there liad been suggestions
`for amending the patent laws in substance and it appears that the
`Committee on Patents studied the draft of the Commission and
`clanged it by various amendments affecting matters of substance.
`The bill thus introduced was enacted on July 8, 1870, 16 Stat. 198,
`and included the subjects of copyrights and trade-marks as well
`as patents.
`When the Revised Statutes, as in force on December 1, 1873, were
`enacted on June 22, 1874, the sections of the act of 1870 were dis-
`tributed in various parts of the Revised Statutes.
`As has already been stated, the present patent laws consist of tlhe
`Patent Act of 1870 with subsequent enactments adding to or changing
`Trle first patent law was enacted
`various sections of that original act.
`in the second session of thc First Congress in 1790. Wlen the first
`Congress met, one of its very first items of business was the considera-
`
`

`
`3
`REVISION OF TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE
`tion of patents and copyrights, and the first patent bill was HT. R. 10
`of the First Congress.
`The patent laws are enacted by Congress in accordance with the
`power granted by article I, section 8, of the Constitution which
`provides that:
`to promote the progress of
`lave the power
`*
`The Congress shall
`*
`*
`science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
`exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
`Thllis provision was unanimously adopted by the Constitutional
`Convention following suggestions for Federal jurisdiction over both
`patents and copyrights which had been made in the Convention by
`Jamnes Madison of Virginia and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina.
`Each proposed separate provisions relating to patents and to copy-
`rights which were merged by the Drafting Committee of the Conven-
`tion into the general statement we now have, which was adopted
`without any dissenting voice.
`The background, the balanced construction, and the usage current
`then and later, indicate that the constitutional provision is really two
`provisions merged into one. The purpose of the first provision is to
`promote the progress of science by securing for limited times to authors
`the exclusive right to their writings, the word "science" in this con-
`nection having the meaning of knowledge in general, which is one of
`its meanings today. The other provision is that Congress has the
`power to promote the progress of useful arts by securing for limited
`times to inventors the exclusive right to their discoverers. The first
`patent law and all patent laws up to a much later period were entitled
`"Acts to promote the progress of useful arts."
`The first patent law, which was enacted on April 10, 1790, vested
`the jurisdiction to issue patents in a Board consisting of the Secretary
`of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of War. The person
`principally interested and tihe leader of the group was the Secretary
`of State, Thomas Jefferson, who was personally deeply interested in
`Jefferson was not a patentee him-
`the subject matter of patent law.
`self, but he was the inventor of a number of devices, most of them
`being "gadgets."
`This first law made the power of the Board to issue patents absolute,
`and also provided for various things that would be necessary in a
`general patent law.
`While the Board, and particularly Thomas Jefferson, was quite
`favorable to the granting of patents, and granted them with' great
`consideration, the other duties of members of this Board, in view of
`their high offices, made it impossible for them to devote much time to
`this work, and as a result the law was changed in 1793 to make the
`granting of patents a clerical function. Under the act of 1793 patents
`were granted to anyone who applied on fulfilling the formal require-
`ments and filing the necessary papers and fees.
`This law continued in force until 1836 when thle dissatisfaction with
`the granting of patents without any examination as to novelty or
`other matters led to the appointment of a select committee by the
`Senate which introduced a bill that became the new law which was
`This new law contains the fundamental
`enacted on July 4, 1836.
`It created a Patent Office with
`principles of our present patent law.
`a Commissioner of Patents at the head, and examiners with the func-
`
`

`
`4
`REVISION OF TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE
`tion of examining applications for patents and with the power to
`refuse patents, which was not present in the previous law. The law
`had many other provisions in it relating to details of procedure,
`enforcement of patents, and matters of that sort.
`Amendments were maf(le to this act of 1836 at various times until
`1870 when tihe law was completely revised in the manner above
`referred to.
`The present bill in a sense, then, is the second revision and codifica.
`tion of the patent laws.
`A detailed description of the provisions of II. R. 7794 as set forth
`in H-ouse Report No. 1923, Eighty-second Congress, is as follows:
`Although the principal purpose of the bill is the codification of title
`35, United States Code, and involves simplification and clarification of
`language and arrangement, and elimination of obsolete and redundant
`provisions there are a number of changes in substantive statutory
`These will b)e explained in some detail in the revision notes
`law.
`keyeCd to each section which appear in the appendix of this report.
`Tllc major changes or innovations in tihe title consist of incorporating
`a requirement for invention in § 103 and tlhe judicial doctrine of co1n-
`tributory infringement in § 271.
`Tel bill divides the statutes into three parts. The first part con-
`tains the]l sections of the law relating to the Patent Office generally, its
`powers and duties and some ancillary matters of that kind.
`Tlhe
`second part consists of thel sections relating to the conditions under
`which a patent may be obtained and the procedure in obtaining
`patents. The third part contains the sections relating to the patents
`themselves and the protection of rights under patents, and matters
`relating to that phase of the subject.
`Stated generally, these three parts relate to, first, the Patent Office,
`second. obtaining a patent, and third, the patent itself.
`Of course
`it "i,.s not been possible to maintain this threc-part division strictly
`and there may be some overlapping of the three phases of the subject.
`In each part the sections arc arranged in several chapters of more or
`less homogeneous subject matter, with chapter headings.
`The organization of the bill and the arrangement of the sections
`are such that new future amendments can readily find their place in
`the organization. Catch lines of parts, chapters, and sections are pro-
`vided for convenience of reference.
`Tlhe first chapter in part I relates to the Patent Office and covers
`the establishment of the PIatent Office, its seal, officers and employees,
`restrictions on officers and employees as to interest in patents, bond
`of thc Commissioner, duties of the Commissioner, the Board of Ap-
`Very little change is introduced
`peals, the Patent Office library, etc.
`There is one change in section 3, relating to a tem-
`in these sections.
`porary successor to the Commissione.i when the office is vacant, filling
`There is a change in section 4 relating to
`a gap in the present law.
`the disability of Patent Office employees to obtain patents.
`The next chapter collects some of the details relating to procedure
`in the Patent Office of general application with no important changes.
`The next group, sections 31, 32, and 33 relate to practice before the
`In them the language of the prior statutes has been
`Patent Office.
`There has been no
`rearranged and divided into several sections.
`change in substance in these sections, except in the third of this
`group which is a criminal provision for unauthorized practice.
`Tio
`
`

`
`5
`REVISION OF TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE
`language has been considerably simplified, and the maximum fine has
`been raised from $100 to $1,000.
`In the next group of sections, relating to Patent Office fees, there
`have been a few readjustments in some minor fees, and an upward
`change in the fee for an appeal to the Board of Appeals.
`The sections of the first part apply to the Patent Office as such,
`and, except for provisions specific to patents, include trade-marks as
`well as patents, where they relate to organizational and procedural
`matters, since the registration of trade-marks is handled by the Patent
`Office.
`Part II relates to patentability of inventions and tlhe grant of
`patents.
`Referring first to section 101, this section specifies tlhe type of
`material which can be the subject matter of a patent.
`Thlle present
`law states that any person who has invented or discovered any "new
`and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
`any new or useful improvement thereof" may obtain a patent. That
`language has been preserved except tlat tlhe word "art" which appears
`tlhe present statute has been changed to the word "process."
`iii
`"Art" in this place in thle present statute has a different meaning
`than the words "useful art" in the Constitution, and a different
`meaning than the use of the word "art" in other places in tlhe statutes,
`and it is interpreted by the courts to be practically synonymous with
`Trie word "process".has been used to avoid the
`process or method.
`necessity of explanation that the word "art" as used in this place
`means "process or method," and that it does not mean the same thing
`as the word "art" in other places.
`The definition of "process" has been added in section 100 to make
`it clear that "process or method" is meant, and also to clarify tlhe
`present law as to the patentability of certain types of processes or
`methods as to which some insubstantial doubts have been expressed.
`Section 101 sets forth the subject matter that can be patented,
`"subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." The con-
`ditions under which a patent may be obtained follow, and section 102
`covers the conditions relating to novelty.
`A person may have "invented" a machine or a manufacture, which
`may include anything under the sun that is made by man, but it is not
`necessarily patentable under section 101 unless the conditions of the
`title are fulfilled.
`Section 102 in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) repeats the conditions in
`tle existing law relating to novelty.
`Subsection (a) is the language of the existing law, recognizing that
`the interpretation by the courts excludes various kinds of private
`knowledge not known to the public.
`Paragraph (d) relating to a bar to patentability when tlhe inventor
`has previously obtained a patent in a foreign country, represents a
`liberalizing change in the existing law.
`Subsection (e) is another well-recognized condition imposed by a
`decision of the Supreme Court which was not expressed in thle exist-
`ing law; for the purpose of anticipating subsequent inventors, a
`patent disclosing the subject matter speaks from thle filing date of
`tlie application disclosing the subject matter.
`Subsection (f) merely emphasizes that it
`is the inventor that
`applies for the patent.
`
`

`
`6
`
`REVISION OF TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE
`Subsection (g) relates to the question of priority of invention
`between rival inventors.
`Section 102, in general, may be said to describe the statutory
`novelty required for patentability, and includes, in effect, an ampli-
`fication and definition of "new" in section 101.
`Section 103, for the first time in our statute, provides a condition
`which exists in the law and has existed for more than 100 years, but
`only by reason of decisions of the courts. An invention which has
`been made, and which is new in the sense that the same thing has not
`been made before, may still not be patentable if the difference between
`the new thing and what was known before is not considered sufficiently
`That has been expressed in a large variety
`great to warrant a patent.
`of ways in decisions of the courts and in writings.
`Section 103 states
`It refers to the difference between the
`this requirement in the title.
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art, meaning what
`If this difference is
`was known before as described in section 102.
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`the time to a person skilled in the art, then the subject matter cannot
`be patented.
`That provision paraphrases language which has often been used in
`decisions of the courts, and the section is added to the statute for
`This section should have a stabilizing
`uniformity and definiteness.
`effect and minimize great departures which have appeared in some
`cases.
`The next group of sections relates to the application for a patent.
`Sections 116 and 118 introduce a new element in our statutes.
`The existing statute is very strict in requiring that only the inventor
`1hese two sections provide for certain types
`may apply for a patent.
`of situations where it may be impossible for the inventor himself to
`apply, or where, in the case of a joint invention, one of the joint
`applicants has been inadvertently erroneously included, or a joint
`inventor inadvertently excluded; the sections provide all the safe-
`guards necessary for the inventor.
`Section 119 introduces a minor change.
`Sections 120 and 121 express in the statute certain, matters which
`exist in the law today but which had not before been written into the
`statute, and in so doing make some minor changes in the concepts
`involved.
`Section 122 incorporates into the title the rule of secrecy of patent
`applications which has existed in the Patent Office for generations.
`The next chapter relates to the examination of the application in
`the Patent Office; rejection by the examiner, the right to reconsidera-
`tion, the time within which an applicant must reply to actions, time
`for prosecuting application, appeal to the Board, and interferences
`Very little has been changed in
`between rival claimants for a patent.
`this group of sections except a minor revision in the interference
`section.
`The next chapter relates to the review of Patent Office decisions.
`The act of 1836 provided, for the first time, for the refusal of patents
`by officials known as examiners. The legislature was jealous of the
`rights of the public and provided adequate means of reviewing the
`In fact, there are now two types of
`action of the Patent Office.
`review. The applicant may appeal to a court of appeals especially
`
`

`
`7
`REVISION OF TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE
`provided, or he may file suit in the district court against the Com-
`missioner to have his rights adjudicated by the court.
`This group of sections makes no fundamental change in the various
`appeals and other review of Patent Office action, but has made a few
`changes in the procedure in various instances to correct some of the
`problems which have arisen, particularly in section 146.
`These
`details are mainly procedural.
`Chapter 15 collects the provisions relating to plant patents, the next
`those relating to designs, and chapter 17 restates the recently enacted
`statute relating to secrecy of certain inventions.
`Part III deals with the patent itself after it has been granted.
`The first chapter of this part relates to correcting and amending a
`patent.
`Sections 251 and 252 are a development of the present statute re-
`nlating to what are called reissues.
`Under certain circumstances the
`patentee may obtain a new patent to replace the old one to correct
`certain kinds of defects that he may have discovered in the patent.
`These two sections together replace the present one, make a number
`of clarifications and a few additions in further development of the
`subject.
`Section 253 relates to another form of correction of a patent known
`as the disclaimer. The patentee files a paper in the Office which is
`recorded. He disclaims certain things from the scope of his patent
`or disclaims certain claims.
`This subject of disclaimers, in the present
`law, has resulted in a great deal of confusion and uncertainty in certain
`situations in the law which at times are almost ridiculous.
`Conse-
`lquently, the bill in two sections, 253 and 288, has introduced certain
`changes relating to disclaimers.
`One of these changes is that only a
`whole claim can be disclaimed; a patent cannot be rewritten by
`filing a paper in the Patent Office.
`The second change relates to the situation when a patent has two
`or more claims and one of them may be discovered to be invalid.
`There is now a provision in the statute under which an invalid claim
`must be disclaimed without unreasonable delay in order to save the
`rest of tlhe patent. What delay is unreasonable is presently quite
`confusing, and the present law does not, as a matter of fact, prevent
`the patentee from suing again on the invalid claim if he so wishes.
`The bill lhas eliminated that requirement.
`It has left the situation
`so that if one claim of a patent is invalid, the patentee may take it
`out. He may sue on the remaining claims which have whatever
`validity they may have on their own merits. That is, one bad claim
`does not affect the other claims, unless they are also bad for similar
`reasons.
`Other provisions of the bill take care at least as well as is done in
`the present law of the possibility of a patentee suing again after his
`That can be done today and no change
`patent has been held invalid.
`is made in that situation, except that certain provisions tend to deter
`doing such a thing.
`Section 255, which permits the Patent Office to correct by a cer-
`tificate a merely clerical error made by the patentee, is new.
`Section 256 is a new section in the law that is correlated with section
`116 and relates to a mistake in joining a person as a joint inventor.
`Very often two or three people make an invention together. They
`
`

`
`8
`REVISION OF TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE
`must apply as joint inventors.
`If they make a mistake in determining
`who are the true inventors, they do so at their peril.
`This provision
`permits a bona fide mistake in joining a person as inventor or in
`failing to join a person as an inventor to be corrected.
`The next chapter of two sections relates to assignments and
`owners)ip.
`Section 262 merely states in the statute a peculiarity relating to
`joint ownership.
`The next two sections collect provisions now in the law referring to
`the Government ownership of 1)atents, making little change except
`in language.
`The next chapter relates to infringements of patents.
`Section 271, l)aragrap)lh (a), is a declaration of what constitutes
`There is no declaration of what constitutes infringc-
`infringement.
`It is not actually necessary because the
`ment in the present statute.
`granting clause creates certain exclusive rights and infringement
`would be any violation of those rigllts.
`Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) relate to the subject referred to as
`contributory infringement.
`The doctrine of conltributory infringe-
`It has been applied
`ment has been part of our law for about 80 years.
`to enjoin those who sought to cause infringement by supplying some-
`one else with the means and directions for infringing a patent.
`One
`who makes a special device constituting the heart of a patented
`machine and supl)plies it to others with directions (specific or implied)
`to complete tlhe machine is obviously appropriating the benefit of
`the patented invention.
`it is for this reason that the doctrine of
`contributory infringement, which prevents appropriating another
`man's patented invention, has been characterized as "an expression
`both of law and morals."
`Considerable doubt and confusion as to
`the scope of contributory infringement has resulted from a number
`of decisions of the courts in recent years. The purpose of this section
`is to codify in statutory form principles of contributory infringement
`Paragraph
`and at the same time eliminate this doubt and confusion.
`(b) recites in broad terms that one who aids and abets an infringe-
`ient is likewise an infringer. The principle of contributory infringe-
`ment is set forth in the provisions of the next paragraph which is
`concerned with thce usual situation in which contributory infringement
`This latter paragraph is much more restricted than many
`arises.
`proponents of contributory infringement believe should be the case.
`The sale of a component of a patented machine, etc., must constitute
`a material part of the invention and must be knoiwrn to be especially
`made or especially adapted for use in the infringement before there
`can be contributory infringement. and likewise the sale of staple
`articles of commerce suitable for noninfringement use does not
`constitute contributory infringement.
`The last paragraph of this
`section provides that one who merely does what hce is authorized to (1do
`by staute is not guilty of misuse of the patent.
`These paragraphs
`have as their main purpIose clarification and stabilization.
`Section 272 is a new section in the law relating to infringement,
`but it is of relatively little importance and it follows a paragraph in
`a treaty to which the United States is a party.
`Beginning with 281 is a group of sections relating to remedy for
`infringement of a patent, the suit in the courts. The present statutes
`
`

`
`9
`REVISION OF TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE
`on this matter are in confusion because they were written quite some
`time ago and court procedure and the names of actions and so on
`have changed since then.
`So the present sections were substantially
`reorganized into a group of sections fitting in at this place, with some
`changes.
`Section 281 is a declaration which serves as a preamble to the others.
`Section 282 introduces a declaration of the presumption of validity
`of a patent, which is now a statement made by courts in decisions,
`but has had no expression in the statute. The defenses to a suit for
`infringement arc stated in general terms, changing the language in
`the present statute, but not materially changing the substance.
`The next few sections relate to injunctions, damages, attorney fees,
`the statute of limitations, and to marking and notice; all of which
`together replace present statutes on suits, with a good deal of Icorgani-
`zation in language to clarify the statement of the statutes.
`Section 288 is the companion section to the disclaimer section, 253.
`Section 292 is a criminal statute relating to falsely marking an
`article as being patented when it was not patented, which is now tlhe
`)present law. But this section revises it and makes a few changes,
`and also makes it an ordinary criminal action as well as an informer
`action as in the present statute.
`Section 293 is a new section that is needed on some occasions to
`obtain jurisdiction over foreign patent owners that do not reside in
`the United States.
`The revision notes, which follow wnd constitute a part of this report,
`point out in more detail the revisions made by the bill.
`The committee is of the opinion. that the codification of title 35 is
`most desirable in order that the laws relating to patents can be
`Previous codifications, such
`readily accessible and understandable.
`ns those of titles 18 and 28, have proved their worth, and after a study
`of the bill II. R. 7794 the conunittee believes that it should be given
`favorable consideration.
`
`

`
`

`
`APPENDIX
`
`..-------------
`
`...
`
`Se
`
`1
`
`100
`251
`
`REVISION NOTES
`Notes explaining in detail the revision of the laws relating to pat-
`ents are set forth in numerical order according to the section numbers
`of the revised title.
`Title 35--Patents
`Part
`I. PATENT OFFICE-------------
`II. PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PAT-
`ENTS ---------------------------------------------------..
`III. PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS-----.
`PART I. PATENT OFFICE
`Chapter
`Sec
`1. ESTABLISHMENT, OFFICERS, FUNCTIONS----------------------
`1
`IN THE PATENT OFFICE-21
`2. PaROCEX1ING
`3. PRACTICE BEFORE THE PATENT OFFICE ------------
`4. PATENT FEES---..-------------------------..-----------------.
`41
`PART II. PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS
`Chapter
`Sec.
`10. PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS ----------.------------.---..-..
`100
`11. APPLICATION FOR PATENT -----
`----------------111
`12. EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS ----------------------------...
`131
`13. REVIEW OF PATENT OFFICE DECISIONS-------------------141
`14. ISSUE OF PATENT ---------..--------------
`151
`__---_----..
`15. PLANT PATENTS --------------------------
`161
`16. DESIGNS ----
`................------------- -----
`171
`17. SECRECY OF CERTAIN INVENTIONS AND FILING APPLICATIONS ABROAD-.
`181
`PART III. PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS
`Chapter
`Sec.
`25. AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION OF PATENTS---------251
`26. OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT ------------------
`261
`27. GOVERNMENT INTERESTS IN PATENTS ---------..--...-----------
`266
`28. INFRINGEMFNT OF PATENTS.--------...
`271
`29. REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT AND OTHER ACTIONS ....
`281
`CHAPTER 1. ESTABLISHMENT, OFFICERS, FUNCTIONS
`Sec.
`1. Establishment.
`2. Seal.
`3. Officers and employees.
`4. Restrictions on officers and employees as to interest in patents.
`5. Bond of Commissioner and other officers.
`6. Duties of Commissioner.
`7. Board of Appeals.
`8. Library.
`9. Classification of patents.
`10. Certified copies of records.
`11
`Publications.
`12 Exchange of copies of patents with foreign countries.
`13. Copies of patents for public libraries.
`14. Annual report to Congress.
`
`-----------..-...
`
`------
`
`-------------
`
`------
`
`.. .
`
`-------
`
`---
`
`---
`
`

`
`12
`
`REVISION OF TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE
`SECTION 1-SECTION REVISED
`Based on title 35, U. S. C., 1946 ed., § 1 (R. S. 475 and Executive
`Order 4175, Mar. 17, 1925).
`The word "all" is omitted from the corresponding section of the
`existing statute and "except as otherwise provided by law" added,
`since some o1(1 records are kept in the National Archives, see 44
`U. S. C., 1946 c(l., ch. 8A.
`The wor(l "mod(lels" has been omitted to remove emphasis on models
`since they arc no longer generally required. Tley are included by
`the word( "things."
`The phrase "and to trade-mark registraltiolls" is added.
`'lThere is
`no enactment corresponding to this section in the trade-mark law.
`The original chapter of the Revised Statutes containing this section
`deals with the Patent Office as such in its administration of trade-
`This is explicitly brotlght out in some of
`marks as well as patents.
`tlhe corresponding sections of the present chapter.
`Changes in language are made.
`SECTION 2-SECTION REVISED
`Based on title 35, U. S. C., 1946 ed., § 3 (R. S. 478).
`"Certificates of trade-mark registrations" is added, see note under
`Changes in language are made and the specific date
`section 1.
`eliminated.
`SECTION 3-SECTION REVISED
`Based on title 35, U. S. C., 1946 ed., § 2 (R. S. 476, amended (1)
`Feb. 15, 1916, chl. 22, § 1, 39 Stat. 8, (2) Feb. 14, 1927, ch. 139, § 1,
`44 Stat. 1098, (3) April 11, 1930. clh. 132, § 1, 46 Stat. 155).
`The temporary designation of the assistant commissioner as Com-
`This will eliminate
`missioner in case of a vacancy in office is adde(ld.
`complications since present applicable general statutes (5 U. S. C.,
`1946 ed., § 7) permit a vacancy to be temporarily filled only for not
`Imorel than 30 (lays.
`Changes in language are made.
`"Assistant (commissioners" is used
`in the second(l sentence (and elsewhere in thie bill) as referring to all
`three assistants.
`Thllis entire title is subject to Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1950
`(64 Stat. 1263) which vests all functions of the Patent Office in the
`Secretary of Commerce and authorizes delegation by him.
`It has
`been found impractical to so word the various sections of the title,
`and a general provision has been inserted as the second paragraph of
`this section of tile bill, leaving the wording of various sections of the
`title in terms of officers previously specified and to whom the functions
`presently stand delegated.
`SECTION 4-SECTION REVISED
`Based on title 35, U. S. C., 1946 ed., § 4 (R. S. 480).
`The language is revised and inability to apply for a patent, included
`in the original language, is made explicit.
`The period of disability is increased to include one year after leaving
`the Office.
`
`

`
`13
`REVISION OF TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE
`The further restriction, that no priority date earlier than one year
`after leaving the Office can be claimed, is added.
`The one year period is made inapplicable to applications which
`may be pending when the revised title goes into effect by section 4 (g)
`of the bill.
`SECTION 5--SECTION REVISED
`Based on title 35, U. S. C., 19