COMMISSIONER LEHMAN:  Right, thank you very much.
        Rene Tegtmeyer is our final witness.
        MR. TEGTMEYER:  My name is Rene Tegtmeyer.  I am associated with the
        Law Firm of Fisch [phonetic] and Richardson.  My address is 601
        Thirteenth Street, Northwest, Washington, D. C., 20005.  I am here
        today to present the views of the Section of Intellectual Property
        Law of the American Bar Association in response to the request by
        the Patent and Trademark Office for comments on 18-month
        publication.  The section's views are set forth in the form of a
        number of resolutions that were recently approved by the section and
        in a report that accompanied those resolutions, which was also
        presented to counsel for the section, which approved the
        resolutions.  The views, I should say, are the comments that I am
        submitting here today.  They have not been approved by the Board of
        Governors or the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association. 
        They do represent, however, the views of the Section on Intellectual
        Property Law of the American Bar Association.  The comments that I
        have given to you in the form of resolutions have accompanying them
        a report, which I mentioned before.  In that report, each of the
        fourteen questions that are posed by the Patent and Trademark Office
        have been individually addressed.  So, you will see in writing there
        the response and a formal set of comments will be submitted by Tom
        Smith, the Chair of the Intellectual Property Law Section by mail
        which will reach you before the February 17th deadline.  I'm going
        to give some abbreviated comments of what is contained in the paper
        presented to you and in what will be presented to you by Tom Smith. 
        I'm going to do so by addressing three broad issues or broad areas
        of questions.  One is publication.  A second is a protest question
        and the third is what I'm calling under the heading of service. 
        With respect to publication, there are several things that ought to
        be taken into account in deciding what to publish and what should be
        made accessible to the public. I think several speakers have already
        mentioned the fact that the document that is being published at 18
        months will be prior art.  In fact, it will be prior art under
        Section 102(e) as of the filing date of the application in this
        country.  Accordingly, information needs to be published which will
        support the use of that document as prior art.  Secondly, the
        document being published broadly is new technology, new information,
        probably in most cases being published for the first time with
        18-month publication and parallel possibly with publication in other
        countries. So as such, both as prior art and as a publication of
        technology, the publication should be such that it is disclosive to
        the public, to the users of those documents. That means in effect
        what some of the earlier speakers have said, a printed publication,
        one that is feedable into databases, accessible to the public and
        the like.  It is also a grant of provisional rights in the situation
        where the claims that ultimately issue are substantially the same as
        those which are published.  So, what gets published needs to be
        suitable for that purpose as well.  In other words, the publication
        should include a readily accessible disclosure in printed form of
        the claims which create the provisional rights or may create
        provisional rights.  So, that is another very important aspect of
        the publication.  In regard to the question of the availability or
        accessibility to biological deposits, again, consideration has to be
        given to the fact that only provisional rights will accrue with
        publication, which means an injunctive relief against other parties
        who are practicing the claimed invention in the publication will not
        be able to be stopped. Therefore, the section's views are, that
        access to the biological deposit should be restricted much in the
        manner that they are in the European patent office.  That is that,
        parties that want to have access to the deposit should make a
        certification that it is for experimentation only and, if requested,
        be limited to access to third party experts.  The second issue which
        I will address is protests. I think most of the earlier speakers
        have already addressed it, but protest should be limited in time and
        in such a way not to interfere with the process of the examination. 
        That is very important because of the 20-year term that may be
        running.  In some cases it may be important at that stage to the
        applicant so the protest should be kept to a minimum for that reason
        and also because they offer an opportunity to harass or interfere
        with the ultimate issuance of the patent and with the enjoyment of
        that patent in as much of its term as possible by the applicant.  I
        think a question was raised as to whether there should be any stays. 
        I think the answer is obviously, no, there shouldn't be any stays
        for consideration of protests.  Under the heading of service, I'll
        just briefly address a few key points.  This just means the views of
        the section are to allow applicants as much flexibility and make
        procedures as simple as possible.  That means that it should be
        possible to abandon the application as late as possible before
        publication.  The first office action should be received as early as
        possible, preferably within 14 months of the U.S. filing date or 14
        months, I should say, of the U.S. filing of a complete application
        or a provisional application, which may be difficult in the case of
        provisionals.  That will give the patent owner an opportunity to
        amend claims, which will go in the published application and an
        opportunity to abandon if that is the preference.  The ability to
        submit late priority claims should be possible, but with limitations
        obviously.  I think in terms of fees, they should be spread over the
        various existing fees if possible and should be reasonable if a
        separate fee is set at the time of publication.  I think that is a
        summary of the views of the section.  I'd be happy to answer any