Comments from Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish

----------------------------------------
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