Letters patent.. Total. Patents granted and trade-marks, labels, and prints registered. Comparative statement of receipts and expenditures, 1901 to 1910. 30, 776. 73 As specified in the foregoing statement, there were received in the last fiscal year 65,154 applications for mechanical patents, 1,315 applications for designs, 206 applications for reissues, 6,857 applications for trade-marks, 879 applications for labels, and 266 applications for prints. There were 34,428 patents granted, including reissues and designs, and 3,791 trade-marks, 576 labels, and 181 prints were registered. The number of patents that expired was 22,546. The number of allowed applications which were by operation of law forfeited for nonpayment of the final fees was 7,098. The total receipts of the office were $1,987,778.58; the total expenditures were $1,957,001.85, and the net surplus of receipts over expenditures was $30,776.73. The total net surplus for all years of receipts over expenditures of all kinds (including salaries of the force) is now $7,029,004.37. This surplus covered into the Treasury represents the net earnings of the bureau, and it has all been paid by the inventors. CONDITION OF WORK. The work of this bureau is at present in a very satisfactory condition and practically up to date in all its branches. Of course, the work naturally falls into arrears during the period of the year from July 1 to October 1, which is the time when the force is taking its annual leaves of absence, but it is always brought up to date by December 31 each year, and continues so until the next vacation period comes around. Congress has been fairly liberal in its appropriations for the Patent Office by increasing its force and salaries and providing new positions, and I have thus been able to bring about, during my incumbency of the office of commissioner, many needed reforms. I think I may safely say that the bureau is in better condition than ever before as regards the transaction of business and the salaries paid employees. I wish to state here that I do not believe there is anywhere in the Government service a more competent, intelligent, hard working, or efficient class of employees than can be found in the Patent Office. The examining corps to-day is made up entirely of men who have been graduated from various technical colleges and schools, and they possess a very thorough foundation of knowledge when they enter the office through the competitive examinations. With but a few exceptions, they all take courses at some of the law colleges of Washington which provide night sessions, with the result that in about four years of service they become graduates and are admitted as members of the bar, both in general and in patent law. I regret to say, however, that although the salaries have been materially increased in the past three years, I have been unable to hold as great a percentage of this specially trained class of men as is desirable to obtain the best possible aggregate efficiency. There is still a certain percentage that separates from the service after a comparatively short period-generally when they have become most valuable. This is on account of the low salaries as compared with the inducements offered by the large corporations and established law firms. I have not, however, asked that the salaries of the examining corps be again raised at this time. GAINS IN EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY. I am glad to state that changes are constantly being made looking to greater efficiency and economy in the service, and a great deal of good along these lines has been accomplished during the past three years. Within the fiscal year just ended a change has been made in the manner of printing certificates of trade-mark registration which has resulted in the saving of between five and six thousand dollars annually. This will be a continuous annual saving. Plans are now under way to accomplish an economy in the method of publishing and issuing the Official Gazette. At this time I am able to say that a saving of between eighty and ninety thousand dollars a year will be made possible, and these contemplated changes will not detract from the efficiency of that publication as a work of reference, but will rather add to it in that respect. It will not be so bulky, and in its more compact form will be appreciated by those who must economize in shelf space, which is quite important, especially to those in large cities where rents are high. Certain changes have been formulated in the rules of practice relating to the registration of trade-marks which, when they become effective, will accomplish a considerable saving of time to examiners in searching this enormous class of applications. At the present time it is required that the examiners search through some 20,000 pending applications, which are in various stages of prosecution. It is proposed to have the same rules apply to applications for the registration of trade-marks as now apply to applications for patents; that is, they must be amended within one year or the application becomes abandoned. This will not cause forfeiture or undue hardship, because applicants will still have the right to file new applications if deemed desirable. LEGISLATION. From time to time I have made recommendations to the Congress which were put into the forms of bills and referred to the Committees on Patents, which if enacted into laws would very materially relieve conditions in various directions in the Patent Office, and also result in a great saving of time and money to inventors as well as reducing the expenses of the office. One important bill has as its object the elimination of one of the appeals within this office. Under the present law appeals lie in ex parte cases from the primary examiners to the board of examiners in chief, thence to the commissioner (the first assistant commissioner, or the assistant commissioner), and from his decision to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and in interference cases the course of appeals from decisions of the examiner of interferences is the same, there being three appeals in each case, The purpose of the proposed amendment to the statute is to shorten the course of prosecution by the elimination of one of the appeals within the office. This is designed to be accomplished by combining the commissioner, first assistant commissioner, assistant commissioner, and examiners in chief into a single appellate tribunal, any three of whom shall constitute a quorum, to which all appeals shall lie, whether from a primary examiner or from the examiner of interferences, and from which appeals would lie to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. The present course of appeals is not well adapted to the volume of business which the office is now called upon to handle, for the following reasons: It imposes on applicants an unnecessary amount of delay and expense. The very purpose of the patent system is to place at the service of the public at as early a date as practicable inventions as they are made, and unnecessary delays affect not only applicants but all interested in the industries to which the inventions relate. One appeal within the office, together with the appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, would seem to be ample, especially in view of the fact that in a suit on a patent a single appeal takes the case from the trial court to the court of appeals. The elimination of one appeal would materially shorten the time required for the ultimate disposal of appealed cases and effect a considerable saving of expense to applicants. Section 4910 provides for an appeal to the commissioner in person from the board of examiners in chief. The work of the office and the consequent number of appeals have increased to such an extent that it has become difficult, and will soon be impossible, for the commissioner to give to each case the amount of personal attention proper to its disposal. The board of examiners in chief as at present constituted consists of three members, and no provision is made under the present law to supply a temporary vacancy caused by the sickness or absence from other cause of any of the members. The absence of one member often results in an evenly divided board, with the consequent necessity for a rehearing, and the absence of two members causes an entire suspension of business. With the proposed appellate board the presence of a quorum of three would be practically assured at all times, which has not been the case in numerous instances in the past, owing to frequent absences of a member of the board on account of periods of illness of greater or less duration and also by reason of annual leave and other causes. The work of this tribunal has so greatly increased during the last few years that it is almost impossible for its members to give the thorough joint consideration to each case which it deserves. The existing trade-mark law provides for appeals from the examiner of trade-marks and from the examiner of interferences in trade-mark cases directly to the commissioner (first assistant, or assistant commissioner). From these tribunals appeal lies to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, as in patent cases. The amendment submitted merely substitutes the proposed board of appeals for the commissioner as the appellate tribunal of the office in cases relating to trade-marks, making the course of appeals in this class of cases conform to the course of appeals recommended above in cases involving applications for patents. These changes in the course of appeals would not only have the effect of expediting the prosecution of applications on appeal, but the elimination of an appeal would be a saving to the inventors of one appeal fee, the attorneys' fees, and other expenses incident thereto. Furthermore, having but one appeal within the office in lieu of two would result in giving greater stability to the decisions of the office tribunals, and would also obviate any want of comity that has at times existed in the past between the decisions of the Commissioner of Patents and the assistant commissioner. These proposed changes in the law in no wise affect the present legal status of the Commissioner of Patents, the first assistant commissioner, the assistant commissioner, or the examiners in chief. Bills embracing the substance of this recommendation were introduced by Senator Smoot and were passed by the Senate. No action, however, was taken upon these bills in the House. I most earnestly recommend that the attention of Congress be again directed to this matter and that the passage of such bills be urged, in view of the following facts: It is the practically unanimous opinion of inventors and manufacturers throughout the country that one appeal should be eliminated in the Patent Office in order to save the great cost and loss of time now involved in obtaining a final adjudication and consequent grant of patent. That no general protest has been lodged and no effective arguments have been made against the passage of the bill. Scientific journals have favorably commented upon this measure by editorials and otherwise and offered no protest or objection. That a great amount of time and labor would be saved to the tribunals of the Patent Office. Under the present system the work is done twice to no good effect. This is an important part of the plan to expedite business and to grant patents to inventors within a reasonable time, which they have demanded and to which they are entitled. I desire also to recommend the passage of certain bills introduced in Congress and referred to in my report to Congress dated December |