----------------------------------------
FROM RESPONDENT 002:
NAME: Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish
COMPANY: LAW OFFICE CORNELL D. CORNISH
ADDR-1: 1101 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, NW, SUITE 301
FOGGY BOTTOM
CITY, STATE ZIP: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20037
TELEPHONE: (202) 429-9705
FAX:
REPRESENT: self
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 01:
Should the PTO require that all Official application related
materials be delivered to a central location? Specifically, what
problems would a requirement that all official application-related
materials be delivered to a central location cause?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 01:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 02:
Should the PTO adopt a standard application format? If so, what
portions of the application papers should the PTO require be
submitted in a standard size and/or format, and what sanction
(e.g., surcharge) should be established for the failure to comply
with these requirements?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 02:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 03:
If the entire application is not published, what information
concerning the application should be published in the Gazette of
Patent Application Notices?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 03:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 04:
Should the patent applicant receive a copy of the published
application -- either published notice and/or application content
at time of publication?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 04:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 05:
Should the PTO permit an accelerated examination? If so, under
what conditions?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 05:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 06:
Since the cost for publishing applications must be recovered from
fees, how should the cost of publication be allocated among the
various fees, including the possibility of charging a separate
publication fee?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 06:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 07:
Should the PTO require an affirmative communication from a patent
applicant indicating that the applicant does not wish the
application to be published, or should failure to timely submit a
publication fee be taken as instruction not to publish the
application? That is, should an application be published unless
the applicant affirmatively indicates that the application is not
to be published, regardless of whether a publication fee has been
submitted? What latitude should the PTO permit for late submission
of a publication fee?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 07:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 08:
The delayed filing of either a claim for priority under 35 U.S.C.
119 or 120 may result in the delayed publication of the
application. Should priority or benefit be lost if not made
within a reasonable time after filing? What latitude should the
PTO permit for later claiming of priority or benefit?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 08:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 09:
Once the patent has issued, should the paper document containing
information similar to that published in the Gazette of Patent
Application Notice, i.e., the Patent Application Notice, be
removed from the search files, and should publication information
be included on the issued patent?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 09:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 10:
After publication, should access to the content of the
application file be limited to the originally filed application
papers? If not, what degree of access should be permilted? Should
access be limited to the content before publication, or should it
extend to materials added after publication?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 10:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 11:
11. After publication, should assignment records of a published
application also be made accessible to the public?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 11:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 12:
After publication, should access include the deposit of
biological materials as set forth in 37 CFR 1.802 et seq.?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 12:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 13:
What types of problems will be encountered if all amendments must
be made by (a) substitute paragraphs and claims, (b) substitute
pages, or (c) replacement of the entire application?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 13:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 14:
Should protest procedures be modified to permit the third party
submission of prior art only prior to a specific period after
publication of the application? What action should be taken with
respect to untimely submissions by a third party?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 14:
No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
GENERAL COMMENT:
Please schedule the undersigned for 2/15/95 to present his public
comments together with the attached written personal comments by
Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish, Suite 301, 1101 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20037, who is an inventor who represents the Village
of Belle Terre,NY, and who is interested in the proposed 18-month
publication of patent applications.
As discussed in his Amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme
Court on behalf of the Village of Belle Terre in the case of Diamond
v. Chakabarty 447 U.S. 303 (1980), it is essential for individual
inventors to rely on the global equality of the U.S. Patent System.
Part of this reliance is the knowledge that every invention
that is made by man is patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101, unless
prohibited by statute. Thus, there is no requirement that an
invention be "important" in order to be patented as required in the
original U.S. Patent Act, since this requirement was done away with
after the First amendment to the U.S. Constitution became the law of
the land.
Indeed, the proposed 18-month publication will not
eliminate the so-called "submarine" patents, because such patents are
derived from patent applications preserved in secrecy under the Fist
Amendment as part of the process that has become institutionalized in
the "public forum" created in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by
the cited case and under the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
The net effect of the proposed 18-month publication will be
to institutionalize still further this "public forum" in which
inventions are first published without prior restraint by the U.S.
Government by first publishing abstracts of patent applications in
the Official Gazette and by placing copies of the complete patent
applications in the public search room where they should be preserved
in their entirety and in perpetuity.
Please let me know if and when you schedule my testimony.
Last Modified: March 1995