70 Intelligence and Miscellaneous u4rticles. 



period than he (the inventor) was ready with his application, then 

 by lodging a caveat, he would have notice and detect the treachery, 

 before it was too late. A patent cannot pass through the office 

 where a caveat has been lodged, without notice being first given to 

 the person who lodges the caveat. 



Supposing he opposes the patent, what steps does he then take? — 

 He may cause the Attorney General to summon the parties, and 

 after examining the respective inventions, he will decide whether 

 they are so dissimilar that the patent is to pass, or not. 



Suppose there are two applications for a patent, and that the 

 Attorney General informs the parties that the inventions are the 

 same, and awards the patent to the first applicant, is it not in the 

 power of the rejected applicant, on receiving that information, to 

 effect such a publication as will destroy the patent right ? — It is in 

 his power ; but I never knew an instance where the Attorney Gene- 

 ral did declare that there was such a similarity and equality of 

 rights to a secret invention, as to induce him to refuse granting a 

 patent ; he has sometimes advised the parties to join their interests 

 in one patent, when he felt difficulty in deciding, and has informed 

 them that by contending at law, their patents, if he allowed them 

 both to pass, would probably destroy each other. 



Is the Attorney General the sole judge between two patent ap- 

 plicants ? — He is ; he summons the parties before him ; they bring 

 their drawings and models, engineers, witnesses, attorneys or agents, 

 to explain ; and sometimes, if it is requested, he will go and visit 

 the machinery. Each party has a separate private hearing. 



Does not the sort of decision he is called upon to pronounce, re- 

 quire considerable knowledge of mechanics ? — It requires a very 

 deep knowledge, to form a decision between the merits of the re- 

 spective inventions, particularly as the inventions at the period 

 when they must necessarily be exhibited to the Attorney General, 

 are seldom organized in that state of perfection which will enable 

 him to judge by results only. 



Is it not an inconvenience that a question between two concur- 

 rent applicants should be decided by a person, perhaps, not very 

 competent to decide such a question ? — It is not felt an inconve- 

 nience, from the circumstance that the Attorney General almost 

 always sees sufficient ground of new invention, to grant the patent, 

 or both, if two are applied for ; therefore the oppositions become 

 of no eft'ect. Patents are at all times subject to be annulled by 

 a court of justice, if not found to be good in every respect, and 

 the Attorney General recommends the King to grant the patent al- 

 most uniformly ; if there are two applications for patents for similar 

 inventions, he allows both patents to pass. When there would be a 

 chance on very close inquiry, by competent judges, of finding col- 

 lision, it is usual to advise the parties to join in a patent, but no- 

 thing more. 



When the patentee comes before the Attorney General, he 

 has to give a general description of the nature of the invention ? — 

 In case of opposition, but not without ; it is a great evil that 



the 



