[Senate Hearing 106-625]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-625
NOMINATIONS OF Q. TODD DICKINSON, TO BE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND
TRADEMARKS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; AND JOHN W. MARSHALL, TO BE
DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
THE NOMINATIONS OF Q. TODD DICKINSON, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, AND
JOHN W. MARSHALL, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. MARSHALS
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
__________
Serial No. J-106-50
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-392 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
Manus Cooney, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from the State of Utah........ 1
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 6
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont... 9
PRESENTERS
Statement of Hon. John Warner, U.S. Senator from the State of
Virginia....................................................... 5
Statement of Hon. Charles S. Robb, U.S. Senator from the State of
Virginia....................................................... 8
NOMINEES
Testimony of John W. Marshall, of Virginia, To Be Director of the
U.S. Marshals Service.......................................... 13
Testimony of Q. Todd Dickinson, of Pennsylvania, To Be
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks......................... 14
ALPHABETICAL LIST AND MATERIALS SUBMITTED
Dickinson, Q. Todd:
Testimony.................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Questioning by Senators:
Hatch.................................................... 17
Sessions................................................. 22
Leahy.................................................... 25
Marshall, John W.:
Testimony.................................................... 13
Questioning by Senators:
Thurmond................................................. 3
Hatch.................................................... 19
Sessions................................................. 21
Leahy.................................................... 24
APPENDIX
Questions and Answers
Responses of Q. Todd Dickinson to questions from Senators:
Thurmond..................................................... 27
Grassley..................................................... 29
Kennedy...................................................... 32
NOMINATIONS OF Q. TODD DICKINSON, TO BE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND
TRADEMARKS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; AND JOHN W. MARSHALL, TO BE
DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G.
Hatch (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Also present: Senators Thurmond, Leahy, Sessions, and
Kennedy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
The Chairman. Today, the Judiciary Committee will hear from
two executive branch nominees, the President's nominees for
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, and for Director of the
U.S. Marshals Service. Each of these positions is of special
importance because each of these entities faces challenges as
we move into the 21st century.
Now, with regard to the Patent and Trademark Office, the
committee looks forward to hearing from Todd Dickinson, to be
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks. Our Nation's patent system has been a driving force
behind American innovation since our Nation's founding.
I am going to put the rest of my statement into the record
so that the record will show how important I believe this
nomination is.
With regard to the Marshals Service, we look forward to
considering the nomination of John Marshall, or should I say
Marshal Marshall, to be Director of the U.S. Marshals Service.
The Marshals Service, which was created by the Federal
Judiciary Act of 1789, is the oldest Federal law enforcement
agency in America, and it is responsible for protecting the
Federal judiciary and providing security in judicial facilities
throughout the Nation, and many other tasks as well.
I will put the rest of my remarks into the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Orrin G. Hatch
Today the Judiciary Committee will hear from two Executive Branch
nominees: the President's nominees for Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks and for Director of the U.S. Marshals Service. Each of these
positions is of special importance because each of these entities faces
tough challenges as we move into the Twenty-First Century.
the patent and trademark office
The Committee looks forward to hearing from Todd Dickinson to be
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents, and
Trademarks.
Our nation's patent system has been a driving force behind American
innovation since our nation's founding. Indeed, the Framers recognized
the importance of protecting innovation when they included in Article
I, Section 8 of our Constitution the power of ``securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive. Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries.'' And pursuant to the 1790 patent act, Thomas
Jefferson, as Secretary of State, was charged with receiving patent
applications and issuing patents, in conjunction with the Attorney
General and the Secretary of War. Much has changed since that time, but
more than 200 years later the patent system continues to propel
American ingenuity, economic growth, and our nation's status as world
leaders in innovation and creativity.
The Patent and Trademark Office (``PTO''), as the administrator of
our federal patent and trademark systems, plays a key role in
maintaining America's competitive edge and innovative superiority. Mr.
Dickinson's nomination comes at an important time. Because, as good as
our patent and trademark systems are, the challenges posed by new and
expanding global markets for American technology, foreign competition,
and the transition from the industrial age to a new information-based
economy are as daunting as the patent and trademark systems, or the
PTO, have ever faced.
In short, if we are to meet these challenges, we must have a PTO
that is equipped with a vision of patent and trademark policy that will
take us into the next century. We must have leadership to attract and
retain bright people to administer the functions of the PTO in an
efficient manner that is responsive to the needs of the PTO's clients--
American innovators and businesses. And, we must have the facilities
and technology to maintain our patent and trademark systems on the
cutting edge, even in the face of burgeoning workloads, limited
resources, and increasing complexity of technology and administrative
matters before. I look forward to Mr. Dickinson's testimony today and
to hearing more of his vision for the PTO as we approach the new
millennium.
the marshals service
The Committee also looks forward to considering the nomination of
John Marshall to be Director of the United States Marshals Service.
The Marshals Service, which was created by the Federal Judiciary
Act of 1789, is the oldest Federal law enforcement agency in America.
The Marshals Service is responsible for protecting the Federal
Judiciary and providing security in judicial facilities throughout the
nation. Needless to say, protecting the Federal Judiciary is an
extremely important task that is essential to maintaining an orderly
justice system and, ultimately, the rule of law. In many nations around
the world, judges are routinely subject to violence and literally
perform their judicial duties in fear. In recent years, prominent
judges have been murdered in Latin and South America. And in the United
States, a federal judge on the Eleventh Circuit was murdered a few
years ago.
In addition to protecting federal judges, the Marshals Service is
also responsible for the custody and transportation of pretrial Federal
prisoners and for the administration of the Witness Security Program
that enables the federal government to solve numerous organized crime
cases. The Marshals Service also apprehends thousands of federal
fugitives each year.
With the growing threat of domestic and foreign terrorism directed
at the federal government, the twenty-first century holds special
challenges for the United States Marshals Service. Consequently, it is
critical that the Marshals Service have leadership with hands on
experience in protecting and facilitating the administration of
justice. Accordingly, the Committee looks forward to hearing from John
Marshall, the President's nominee, as to his views of the challenges
facing the Marshals Service and how he plans to meet them.
The Chairman. I will say the committee looks forward to
hearing from both of these nominees as to their views and the
challenges that they will be facing. We are also very happy to
have Senator Warner here, and I think before we call on the two
nominees, let's call on Senator Warner first and then I am
going to turn to Senator----
Senator Warner. The chairman here might have a few remarks.
The Chairman. Senator Thurmond has some questions once we
are through.
Senator Warner. I see.
Senator Thurmond. I have got to open the Senate in a few
minutes.
Senator Warner. Why don't I just defer to our distinguished
former chairman to let his questions be asked.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Mr. Dickinson, why don't we have you come to
the table as well so we can charge both of you at the same
time?
Senator Warner. Senator Thurmond never fails to open the
Senate, as you well know, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We have to get him over there on time because
he takes that seriously, I will tell you.
Senator Thurmond. I like to be on time.
The Chairman. Well, you are.
questioning by senator thurmond
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Marshall, how has your experience in
law enforcement and as U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of
Virginia prepared you for the position you are seeking today?
Mr. Marshall. Senator, each day across the country the
Marshals Service interacts with other Federal law enforcement
agencies, as well as State and local agencies. What I bring to
the Service is 14 years of experience at the State level as a
Virginia State Trooper and 5 years as U.S. Marshal of the
Eastern District of Virginia.
In addition to overseeing the district, I have also been on
several committees, which has given me very valuable experience
in dealing with the Service on a nationwide basis and with our
headquarters.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Marshall, the Marshals Service needs
strong leadership, which I believe, based on your experience,
you will provide. One of the most important issues facing the
Service today involves budget problems. In the past 3 years,
auditors have issued a disclaimer of opinion regarding its
books. Also, the Inspector General has reported control
weaknesses with the Service's new financial management system,
STARS. Further, news reports indicate that the Justice
Department has had to transfer funds to the Service to keep it
operating in this fiscal year.
What are your concerns regarding financial weaknesses at
the Service, and how do you plan to address them?
Mr. Marshall. Senator, without a doubt, in light of our
current budget shortfall and the associated hiring freeze that
the agency has been under since January of this year, we need
to make significant changes in the way we formulate and execute
our budget. In particular, we need to develop a process which
includes taking into consideration long-term budget
implications, particularly when we hire new positions and when
we acrete existing positions.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Marshall, as you know, the Marshals
Service is responsible for providing personal security for the
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The
security the drug czar receives appears to be excessive
compared to other Federal officials.
I understand the current Director of ONDCP requested and
was provided a new armored Cadillac--I repeat, a new armored
Cadillac--which cost the taxpayers $141,000. Do you believe
that the routine duties of the drug czar warrant the use of an
armored car, and if you are confirmed, will you review this
matter and advise the committee of your findings?
Mr. Marshall. Senator, I understand your concerns. We have
been tasked--the Marshals Service has been tasked with
providing protection for the Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy since 1989. If confirmed as Director, I
will look into the current threat assessment on the Director
and will certainly report back to you as far as the current
status of the level of protection that we are providing to him.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you. Mr. Marshall, in addition to
an armored car, it also appears that the Director of ONDCP has
considerable more personal security guards than most other
Federal officials, except those protected by the Secret
Service.
If confirmed, will you evaluate the extent of security
provided to the drug czar to determine whether it is excessive
based on the threat level that he faces?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir, Senator, I will.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Marshall, on another topic, I believe
there are far too many criminals who are fugitives from justice
roaming the streets of America today. According to some
estimates, there are at least one-half million State and local
felony fugitives, and about 45,000 Federal fugitives.
As you know, the Marshals Service has State-Federal task
forces that help to apprehend these fugitives. I believe that
there is a need to expand joint Federal-State fugitive task
forces within the Marshals Service to help address this
problem.
Will you review this situation and advise me of your
findings?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, Senator, I will.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Marshall, if the Marshals Service
were provided administrative subpoena power regarding fugitives
as the DEA currently has regarding drug cases, would that
assist your agency in locating fugitives effectively and
quickly, and explain why.
Mr. Marshall. Senator, administrative subpoena authority
would be a tremendous investigative tool for the Marshals
Service. We are very proud of our fugitive apprehension
program, and to have that authority would certainly enable us
to locate the fugitives that we are investigating without delay
that we are currently going through to obtain subpoenas. It
would be a tremendous asset to us.
Senator Thurmond. I am counting on big things from you. I
have heard so many nice things about you, and don't you let us
down.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Senator. I won't.
Senator Thurmond. I have got to go and open the Senate now.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you very much, Senator Thurmond.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
kindness.
The Chairman. You bet. Thank you.
You had better pay attention to him. We all do around here,
I want you to know.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. He is truly one of the greatest people I have
ever known.
You get over there because we don't want the Senate to be
open without you.
I think I will defer your opening statements until I call
on Senator Warner, if it will be all right.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.
Indeed, I was greatly impressed with the manner in which the
nominee answered some good, tough questions from the former
chairman of this committee.
Chairman Hatch, Chairman Thurmond and other members of this
committee, I am pleased to strongly support a longtime Virginia
resident, John W. Marshall, to serve as Director of the U.S.
Marshals Service.
As a former Federal prosecutor myself, I know the important
role that the U.S. Marshals Service plays in our Federal
Government. The U.S. Marshals Service has a long, distinguished
history of protecting the Federal judiciary, arresting Federal
fugitives, transporting Federal prisoners, protecting
endangered Federal witnesses, and managing assets seized from
criminal enterprises.
Mr. Chairman, in light of these important duties that the
U.S. Marshals Service performs, it is absolutely imperative
that the Marshals Service has a strong leader, one with
extensive experience. John W. Marshall meets these criteria.
Since 1994, Mr. Marshall has served as the U.S. Marshal for
the Eastern District of Virginia. During his time in this
position, Mr. Marshall chaired the Marshals Service Leadership
Council and has been a member of the Service's Asset Forfeiture
Leadership Council.
In addition, in late 1995, Mr. Marshall served as an on-
site commander for the U.S. Marshals' deployment of 150
operational personnel in the Virgin Islands in the aftermath of
Hurricane Marilyn. Prior to working for the U.S. Marshals
Service, Mr. Marshall served the Commonwealth of Virginia for
14 years in the Virginia State Police, a very proud, efficient,
and well-recognized, not only in Virginia but beyond its
borders, as a first-class law enforcement organization.
Starting his career with the Virginia State Police as a
trooper in 1980, Mr. Marshall later worked as a special agent
and earned the rank of sergeant. Mr. Marshall is obviously a
very accomplished American who has dedicated his professional
career to public service. He is well-qualified to serve as
Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, and I am certain that he
will serve in this position with honor, integrity, and with
distinction. Mr. Marshall would be a strong asset for our
Nation's oldest--and I repeat oldest--law enforcement agency.
Again, I am pleased and honored to indicate my support for
this outstanding individual. And what a privilege it was this
morning also to meet his family, and indeed the widow of our
distinguished late Justice. I had the opportunity to share a
moment with Mrs. Marshall. I was a young law clerk on the
Federal circuit court of appeals here when I went up and stood
in the back of the courtroom when Brown v. Board of Education
was argued by Thurgood Marshall and John W. Davis, a day I will
not forget.
Good luck to you, sir.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Warner. That is very
high praise indeed. We appreciate you taking time out of a busy
schedule to be here.
Senator Warner. I am glad to do it. Thank you.
The Chairman. Let me turn to Senator Kennedy and see if he
has any remarks.
Mr. Dickinson, why don't you take the other microphone
there?
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think all of us
are enormously appreciative of having these hearings this
morning because I think all of us are very mindful of the long
process that it is taking in getting the administration's
nominees to consideration from our committee and also on the
floor. So we welcome these particular meetings, and we look
forward to action on the Sentencing Commission as well at the
earliest possible time, since that has been basically immobile
since the vacancies that have been created on it. That has been
a mixed responsibility between getting nominees for the
Sentencing Commission and also for the Judiciary Committee and
the Senate as a whole, but we will look forward to action on
those matters.
I am particularly delighted to welcome our two nominees,
one in particular, Mr. John Marshall. I want to say, as Senator
Warner has, about not only his very wide range of background
and activities that he will bring to this job, but there is
also an extraordinary ingredient steeply fixed in the soul of
that family, and that is one of public service. This has really
been an extraordinary legacy.
I have been fortunate to have met, obviously, the Justice,
and knew him not closely, but one of his great admirers over a
long period of time, and also Goody Marshall, who I had the
fortune of being a legislative assistant to me for a number of
years and just was one of the most able and gifted and talented
young people that I have had good fortune to have, and now
serves with great distinction in the White House.
So it is an extraordinary family, committed to public
service, and I think it is a great tribute to the mother and
the Justice and to the members of the family for this very keen
kind of awareness and dedication. We are very lucky to have
them.
As has been pointed out, he brings a wide range of very
practical and intellectual assets to this position. It is a
very important position, a very important position, and I am
confident that he will do it with great distinction. And I look
forward to supporting his nomination not only on this
committee, but on the floor. I think the President has selected
wisely, and we thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
hearing.
I want to thank Todd Dickinson. I think we are fortunate to
have someone of his ability and understanding of one of the
most complex and difficult aspects of the law. I don't think
many of us who came to this committee really ever thought we
were ever going to be dealing much with trademarks and
copyright. I think it was the 1976 Act that was really the
first one that I had seen experienced, having been on the
committee since 1963.
This is not an area of great expertise by this committee.
We have been trying to learn over a period of time, but one
thing that has happened is so much is involved in terms of
copyright and trademark and intellectual property, and we need
to have the skills developed by ourselves, but also by our
staff, but also in this particular position. And Todd Dickinson
has been a skilled and learned professional in this area, and I
think has brought great enlightenment to these issues which are
difficult and mundane, but have enormous implications in terms
of people's interests. So we thank you very, very much for your
willingness to serve.
I thank the Chair. I appreciate his indulgence.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Mr. Chairman, I welcome today's hearing to consider these nominees.
Over the past few months, many of us have expressed concern about the
Senate's continuing delays in acting on President Clinton's nominees to
important positions in the Administration and the federal courts. Over
100 positions, including important national security, defense,
education, and judicial positions are unfilled.
The Republican leadership also continues to refuse to act on
President Clinton's nomination of Bill Lann Lee to head the Department
of Justice's Civil Rights Division--a critical law enforcement
position.
The confirmation impasse is serious.
I welcome the two nominees appearing before us this morning. John
Marshall has been nominated to be Director of the U.S. Marshals
Service. He is the brother of Thurgood Marshall, Jr. who is a former
member of my Judiciary Committee staff and who is currently serving the
Clinton Administration with great distinction. The Marshall family has
made extraordinary contributions to our country. John Marshall brings
numerous years of outstanding law enforcement experience, having served
14 years as a Virginia State Trooper and five years as the U.S. Marshal
for the Eastern District of Virginia. I have no doubt that John
Marshall will serve ably in this new position.
Todd Dickinson is eminently qualified to serve as Assistant
Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. Over
the years, he has developed a widely respected expertise in the field
of intellectual property. He brings excellent credentials to this
position and I commend him on his nomination.
Mr. Chairman,, I commend you for scheduling this hearing. I look
forward to working with you in moving these nominees through the
confirmation process as quickly as possible.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Kennedy.
We have Senator Robb here. Senator, we will take your
statement at this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. ROBB, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VIRGINIA
Senator Robb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kennedy,
for the opportunity to say just a word on behalf of the
President's nominee to be Director of the U.S. Marshals
Service.
I have had the privilege of knowing the Marshall family for
many years. As Senator Kennedy alluded to, this is a family
that has been steeped in public service and commitment for
literally generations at this point. And I had occasion to know
John Marshall, now Marshal Marshall, when he was with the
Virginia State Police for 14 distinguished years and to
recommend his nomination to be the Marshal for the Eastern
District of Virginia, and to concur and very enthusiastically
support his nomination to be Director of the Marshals Service.
It is a Service that has an extraordinary range of duties
that we come into contact with from day to day, but we
sometimes forget just how important it is to the functioning of
our entire legal and judicial system. But I think in John
Marshall the President has selected someone who has clearly
gained the respect of those with whom he has worked at each
level of his government service.
And as Senator Kennedy has already observed, he has a
brother who has performed yeoman service not only to the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, but to the President
and the Vice President of the United States. And I am very
pleased that his mother, Mrs. Thurgood Marshall, Cissy
Marshall, is with him yet again today. She has had quite a
number of public appearances of late in support of two
extraordinary sons who have followed their father into public
service, and specifically in this case heading up the U.S.
Marshals Service.
I might offer just one anecdotal note, if I may, Mr.
Chairman, because it has meant a great deal to me. As it turned
out, when Justice Thurgood Marshall passed away, the last
letter that he signed happened to be a letter that he was
sending to me wholeheartedly recommending John Marshall for
appointment then to U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of
Virginia.
His secretary was kind enough to contact me even before I
received the letter and say that, as fate would have it, that
happened to be the last letter that Justice Marshall sent, and
it remains one of my treasured possessions. And I was able to
fulfill Justice Marshall's request, although it was seconded by
many throughout the Eastern District of Virginia who knew and
already admired the good work that John Marshall had already
done for Virginia.
So I am very pleased today, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Kennedy, to wholeheartedly endorse and recommend the nomination
of the President of John Marshall to be Director of the
Marshals Service.
And might I also say that Mr. John Richard Steere of
Virginia, has been nominated for the U.S. Sentencing
Commission. He is well-known to this committee, has served as
an aide to Senator Thurmond and as General Counsel to the
Sentencing Commission. So I wanted to put in a word for another
highly qualified Virginian. But I am particularly pleased at
this moment to stand four-square behind the nomination of John
William Marshall to be Director of the U.S. Marshals Service.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Kennedy, I thank you for your
attention.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Robb. We appreciate
you taking time to be here, and it is certainly very good
praise indeed.
The Chairman. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. I have a statement of Senator Leahy, if it
could be made a part of the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator From the
State of Vermont
This morning the Senate Judiciary Committee is considering two
important Executive Branch nominations, one to head the U.S. Marshal
Service and the other to serve as our Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks. Some of us on this Committee already know and have worked
closely with both of these outstanding nominees, John W. Marshall,
currently a U.S. Marshal in Virginia, and Q. Todd Dickinson, who has
been our Assistant Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. I thank the
Chairman for moving ahead on these nominations.
We have pending before us more than 30 other Executive Branch
nominations, as well. These include the seven nominees to the United
States Sentencing Commission, four nominees to the United States Parole
Commission, three members of the Board of Directors of the State
Justice Institute, three Assistant Attorney General nominations, three
United States Marshal nominations, eight United States Attorney
nominations, and the nominee to head the Office for Victims of Crime at
the United States Department of Justice. These are all important
nominations. To be fair to the nominees and their families, to show
respect for the offices to which they have been nominated and the
responsibilities of those offices, and to fulfill our constitutional
role in the confirmation process, I urge prompt and favorable action of
these nominations by the Committee and by the Senate.
The Executive Branch nomination that has been held up the longest
is that of Bill Lann Lee to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil
Rights Division at the United States Department of Justice. I marked
the 2-year anniversary of this nomination with a Senate floor statement
in July. I continue to urge this Committee to do the right thing, the
honorable thing, and report this qualified nominee to the Senate so
that the Senate may fulfill its constitutional duty under the advice
and consent clause and vote on this nomination without further delay.
His is a critical position in the fight against hate crimes. If we
are serious about opposing hate crimes, we ought to confirm Bill Lann
Lee to help wage that battle with the full authority of a confirmed
Assistant Attorney General for civil rights, rather than treat him as
if the efforts he is leading against hate crimes were unimportant. Let
the Senate vote on the confirmation of this good man.
We need Bill Lann Lee's proven problem-solving abilities in these
difficult times with hate crimes on the rise across the country. He is
spearheading federal efforts against hate crimes, against modem slavery
and for equal justice for all Americans. He is doing an outstanding
job.
When confirmed, Bill Lann Lee will be the first Asian Pacific
American to be appointed to head the Civil Rights Division in its
storied history and the highest ranking federal executive officer of
Asian Pacific American heritage in our 200-year history. Senate
confirmation of Bill Lann Lee is an important, concrete step that the
Senate can take now to help in efforts against hate crimes and to
protect the civil rights of all Americans.
I am deeply disappointed, as well, that some on the other side of
the aisle are continuing to delay consideration and confirmation of the
President's outstanding nominees to the United States Sentencing
Commission. In his Year-End Report for 1997 the Chief Justice of the
United States made a special plea for prompt action on nominees to the
Sentencing Commission. It has taken some time for Senator Lott and
Senator Hatch to be able to get together with the Senate Republican
caucus on the panel of people who would be acceptable nominees. The
President has been very patient in the course of his extended
consultation with Senate Republican leaders on these nominations. Now
that we have been able to move forward with the nomination of a strong
and experienced bipartisan panel of judges and others to reinvigorate
the Sentencing Commission, now that the President has sent us seven
qualified nominees, it is time for this Committee and the Senate to
proceed. I look forward to working with the Chairman to ensure the
prompt consideration and confirmation of the panel of nominees pending
before us.
Finally, I regret that the Committee has not moved forward on the
six qualified judicial nominee who had their confirmation hearing back
on September 14 and hope that they will not be delayed much longer.
Likewise, the Senate has before it ready for action the nominations of
Judge Richard Paez, Raymond Fisher and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth
Circuit, Justice Ronnie L. White to the District Court in Missouri, and
other qualified nominees. For Judge Paez and Justice White, this is
their second extended hold on the Senate calendar, having been
favorably reported by the Committee both last year and earlier this
year.
I urge the Senate Republican leadership to heed the words of
Justice Rehnquist:
Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time
for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote. *
* * The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any
particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it
should vote him up or vote him down.
At the time the Chief Justice issued that challenge, Judge Paez'
nomination had already been pending for 24 months and Justice White's
nomination for six months--that was almost two years ago.
I say that this is about fairness and about the Senate being fair
to all nominees and to other Senators and to the American people. The
Senate should be able to vote on the Paez nomination within 4 years and
the Berzon nomination within 2 years. Anonymous Republican Senators are
being unfair to the judicial nominees on the calendar. The Senate
Republican leadership refuses to commit to a vote before the end of the
session on these qualified nominees.
The Atlanta Constitution noted last Thursday:
Two U.S. appellate court nominees, Richard Paez and Marsha
Berzon, both of California, have been on hold for four years
and 20 months respectively. When Democrats tried Tuesday to get
their colleagues to vote on the pair at long last, the
Republicans scuttled the maneuver. The Paez case seems
especially egregious. * * * This partisan stalling, this
refusal to vote up or down on nominees, is unconscionable. It
is not fair, It is not right, It is no way to run the federal
judiciary. Chief Justice William Rehnquist is hardly a fan of
Clinton. Yet even he has been moved to decry Senate delaying
tactics and the burdens that unfilled vacancies impose on the
federal courts. Tuesday's deadlock bodes ill for judicial
confirmations through the rest of Clinton's term. This
ideological obstructionism is so fierce that it strains our
justice system and sets a terrible partisan example for years
to come.
It is against this backdrop that I, again, ask the Senate to be
fair to these judicial nominees and all nominees. For the last few
years the Senate has allowed one or two or three secret holds to stop
judicial nominations from even getting a vote. That is wrong.
I am working with the Chairman to try to forge a way through the
impasse on the Senate floor so that the Senate considers all of the
judicial nominations that this Committee has reported. I have tried to
work with the Chairman and with the Majority Leader on all these
nominations. I would like to work with those whom the Majority Leader
is protecting from having to vote on the Paez and Berzon nominations,
but I do not know who there are.
In February of this year, the Majority Leader and the Democratic
Leader sent a letter to all Senators to address this practice of
``secret holds.'' They told us then that, ``members wishing to place a
hold on any * * * executive calendar business shall notify the
committee of jurisdiction of their concerns.'' I am the Ranking
Democrat on the committee of jurisdiction for these nominations and
have not been shown that courtesy by a single Senator obstructing
consideration of this nominations. The leaders' letter goes on to
state: ``Further, written notification should be provided to the
respective Leader stating their intentions regarding the * * *
nomination.'' I have checked with Senator Daschle and he has received
no such notification. Thus, in spite of what was supposed to be a
Senate policy that did away with anonymous holds, we remain in a
situation where I do not even know who is objecting to proceeding to
schedule a vote on the Paez and Berzon nominations, let alone why they
are objecting. In this setting I have no ability to reason with them or
address whatever their concerns are because I do not know their
concerns. That is wrong and unfair to the nominees.
I do not deny to any Senator his or her prerogatives as a member of
the Senate. I have great respect for this institutions and its
traditions. Still, I must say that this use of secret holds for
extended periods that doom a nomination from ever being considered by
the United States Senate is wrong and unfair and beneath us. Who is it
that is afraid to vote on these nominations? Who is it that is hiding
their opposition and obstruction of these nominees?
A Washington Post editorial last week characterized the conduct of
the Republican majority as ``simply baffling'' and opined: ``[T]he
Constitution does not make the Senate's role in the confirmation
process optional, and the Senate ends up abdicating responsibility when
the majority leader denies nominees a timely vote. All the nominees
awaiting floor votes, Mr. Stewart included, should receive them
immediately.''
It is September 29 and the Senate has acted on only 17 of the 68
judicial nominations the President has sent us this year. We have only
4 weeks in which the Senate is scheduled to be in session for the rest
of the year. By this time last year the Committee had held 10
confirmation hearings for judicial nominees, and 43 judges had been
confirmed. By comparison, this year there have been only four hearings
and only 17 judges have been confirmed. Thus, the Senate is operating
this year at less than half the productivity of last year. We remain
miles behind our pace in 1994, when by this time we had held 21
hearings and the Senate had confirmed 73 judges.
The Florida Sun-Sentinel said last week:
The ``Big Stall'' in the U.S. Senate continues, as senators
work slower and slower each year in confirming badly needed
federal judges. * * * This worsening process is inexcusable,
bordering on malfeasance in office, especially given the urgent
need to fill vacancies on a badly undermanned federal bench. *
* * The stalling, in many cases, is nothing more than a
partisan political dirty trick.
For the last several years I have been urging the Judiciary
Committee and the Senate to proceed to consider and confirm judicial
nominees more promptly and without the months of delay that now
accompany so many nominations. Over the last couple of weeks
independent studies have verified my complaints and concerns. According
to the report released last Wednesday by the Task Force on Judicial
Selection of Citizens for Independent Courts, the time it is taking for
the Senate to consider nominees has grown significantly, from an
average of 83 days in 1993 and 1994 during the 103rd Congress, to over
200 days for the years 1997 and 1998 during the last Congress, the
105th. In fact, if they were to look at the average number of days from
confirmation to nomination on an annual basis, as I have, they would
see that it broke records in each of the last three succeeding years
1996, 1997 and 1998. In 1998, the average time for confirmation was
over 230 days.
The report also verifies that the time to confirm female nominees
is now significantly longer than that to confirm male nominees--a
difference that has defied logical explanation. They recommend that
``the responsible officials address this matter to assure that
candidates for judgeships are not treated differently based on their
gender.''
The report recommends that the Senate should eliminate the practice
of allowing individual members to place holds on a nominee.
This summer Professor Sheldon Goldman and Elliot Slotnick published
their most recent analysis of the confirmation process in President
Clinton's second term in Judicature magazine. They note the
``unprecedented delay at both the committee and floor stages of Senate
consideration of Clinton judicial nominees'' and conclude:
It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the Republican
leadership in the Senate is engaged in a protracted effort to
delay decision making on judicial appointments whether or not
the appointee was, ultimately, confirmable.
In spite of efforts last year in the aftermath of strong criticism
from the Chief Justice of the United States, the vacancies facing the
federal judiciary remain at 65 with 17 on the horizon and the vacancies
gap is not being closed. We have more federal judicial vacancies
extending longer and affecting more people. Judicial vacancies now
stands at approximately 8 percent of the federal judiciary. If one
considers the additional judges recommended by the judicial conference,
the vacancies rate would be over 15 percent and total over 135.
Nominees deserve to be treated with dignity and dispatch--not
delayed for two and three years. We are seeing outstanding nominees
nitpicked and delayed to the point that good women and men are being
deterred from seeking to serve as federal judges. Nominees practicing
law see their work put on hold while they await the outcome of their
nominations. Their families cannot plan.
Certainly no President has consulted more closely with Senators of
the other party on judicial nominations, which has greatly expanded the
time this Administration has taken to make nominations. The Senate
should get about the business of voting on the confirmation of the
scores of judicial nominations that have been delayed without
justification for too long.
Just last month, in his remarks to the American Bar Association,
the President, again, urged us to action. He said: ``We simply cannot
afford to allow political considerations to keep our courts vacant and
to keep justice waiting.'' We must redouble our efforts to work with
the President to end the longstanding vacancies that plague the federal
courts and disadvantage all Americans. That is our constitutional
responsibility. I continue to urge the Senate and, in particular, the
Republican leadership to attend to these nominations without
obstruction and proceed to vote on them with dispatch.
I thank the Senators who have come to introduce these nominees to
the Committee. I look forward to the Committee completing its
consideration of all of the nominations included in today's hearing and
pending before it and urge the Senate to vote without further delay on
the nominations that the Committee has favorably reported.
Senator Kennedy. And I just want to say to Mr. Marshall, we
have a wonderful woman, Nancy McGillivary, who was one of the
first three women appointed during the Clinton administration
as a U.S. Marshal.
There were a lot of questions initially when she took over
that responsibility, but I can just tell you she has won
absolute plaudits for her professionalism and her service. So I
just want to tuck that in the back of your mind.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir, Senator. I have worked with her on
several committees and know her well.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you.
The Chairman. We all know why Senator Kennedy is such an
effective politician, don't we? [Laughter.]
He never misses an opportunity, let me tell you.
John, we are very proud of you. You and Goodie are going to
control the country, I think, in the future. You are both very,
very nice people, and very, very good people and accomplished.
We are very proud that you are having this opportunity.
Mr. Dickinson, we are pleased with your record and what you
are able to do in your chosen field and in this calling that
you have received.
I have to say that the Marshall family certainly deserves a
lot of accolades for what your family has been able to
accomplish. And I join in Senator Kennedy's praise that this
family is a family of public service, doing public service, and
doing it in the highest way.
I knew your father pretty well, really, and I had great
admiration for him. He was a pioneer in the days when it was
really, really tough to do anything, and who risked his life
and had a lot of guts, a lot of fortitude, a lot of courage to
do what he did. And I just want you to know that you have a lot
to live up to because your mom is even better.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. So you are going to have to live up to this,
and I am going to watch you everyday.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you very much, Senator.
The Chairman. We are glad to have you here.
Would either of you care to make a statement to the
committee? You can if you want to.
Do you mind, Mr. Dickinson, if we go with Mr. Marshall
first and then we will come to you?
Mr. Dickinson. Fine.
The Chairman. OK.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. MARSHALL, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF
THE U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy, I am honored
to appear before you today. I would like to begin by
introducing members of my family in attendance--my wife, Jean;
our daughter, Melonie; and my mother, Mrs. Cecelia Marshall.
Our other daughter, Cecelia, is attending her second week of
classes at the Savannah College of Art and Design. My brother,
Thurgood Marshall, Jr., was not able to attend today due to a
scheduling conflict. The unwavering support, confidence,
guidance and love of my family have brought me to where I am
today.
To say that my appearance before you as President Clinton's
choice to serve as the next Director of the U.S. Marshals
Service is a truly humbling experience would be quite an
understatement. If confirmed, it will be my honor and privilege
to lead the Marshals Service into the 21st century.
The U.S. Marshals Service, which celebrated its 210th
birthday last Friday, is the oldest Federal law enforcement
agency. I have had the privilege of serving as U.S. Marshal for
the Eastern District of Virginia since June 1994. In addition
to overseeing the operation of the district, I have served on
several committees which have given me valuable experience with
the agency on a nationwide basis. As the Chairman of the
Leadership Council, I have seen firsthand the fine work
performed on a daily basis by the men and women of the Marshals
Service, both in the field and in headquarters.
The Marshals Service, created by the Federal Judiciary Act
of 1789, occupies a uniquely central position in the Federal
judicial system. We take tremendous pride in having the
responsibility of protecting the Federal judiciary and
providing security in the 800 judicial facilities throughout
the 50 States, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands. This critically important task of
safeguarding the Federal judicial system remains our most
important mission.
Another major role in the judicial system for the Marshals
Service is the custody and transportation of pre-trail and
unsentenced Federal prisoners. The Marshals Service has
approximately 32,700 detainees in custody on any given day.
Annually, we arrest more Federal fugitives than all other
Federal law enforcement agencies combined. In just the past 5
years since I have been a U.S. Marshal, the Service has
arrested over 83,000 Federal fugitives.
The Witness Security Program established by Congress 28
years ago and given to the Marshals Service to manage continues
to operate with a perfect record; that is to say that not one
of the over 7,000 protected witnesses who has followed the
established rules has ever been killed as a result of their
testimony.
The Marshals Service is also responsible for the management
and disposal of fees and forfeited properties acquired by
criminals through illegal activities. We are proud to report
that the General Accounting Office found no material weaknesses
or deficiencies in their January 1999 audit of our program.
Earlier, I alluded to the professional women and men of the
U.S. Marshals Service. We have all heard the old saying that
actions speak louder than words. While our outstanding program
achievements which I have noted certainly illustrate that we
truly are an agency of actions rather than words, the
tremendous pride and dedication of our operational and
administrative employees is best illustrated when you take into
account the hiring freeze we have been under since January of
this year.
Through teamwork, personal sacrifice, and tremendous pride
in our agency, we have been able to maintain our high
performance level. My first priority, if confirmed, will be to
take the necessary steps to remedy our budget shortfall so that
our hiring freeze can be lifted.
In closing, President Lincoln once said, ``I will prepare
and someday my chance will come.'' During my 19 years in law
enforcement, I feel that I have been preparing, and now I am
hopeful that this committee will provide me with the chance to
lead the finest Federal law enforcement agency into the next
century.
I sincerely thank you for affording me the opportunity to
appear before you today and I look forward to answering your
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Dickinson, do you care to make a statement?
TESTIMONY OF Q. TODD DICKINSON, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS
Mr. Dickinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank
Secretary Daley for recommending me, and to the President for
nominating me to this important post. I have been involved with
intellectual property my entire career, and for me this is a
tremendous honor and somewhat humbling experience to be
considered for the opportunity to serve in this capacity.
Mr. Chairman, almost 2 years ago I left my hometown of
Philadelphia, where I practiced in a law firm, and came to
Washington, DC, to serve in this administration. Indeed, it was
over a year ago--just over a year ago I was considered by this
committee and later confirmed by the full Senate for the
position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Deputy
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, and I very much
appreciate the courtesy and consideration you and your
committee showed me at that time.
During my service as Deputy Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks, it has been a great pleasure and opportunity to
work with you and the other members of the committee and your
staff on a variety of critical issues. During that process, one
of the things that I found particularly gratifying is the
extent to which intellectual property issues are addressed on a
nonpartisan basis. This is a tradition which I believe is in
our Nation's best interest and one which I have tried to follow
during my time in office.
I believe that no single issue is more important to shaping
the future growth and development of the world economy than
intellectual property. From biotechnology, to semiconductors,
to the Internet, the people who make decisions about
investment, research and development rely on strong
intellectual property protection. Without a strong mechanism to
incent and protect that investment, our Nation's economy would
not be growing as fast as it is today.
Regarding the U.S. PTO, I strongly believe that managing
the agency's growth, ensuring the high quality of our products
and services, and maintaining America's position as an
international leader in intellectual property are the key to
this agency's and our Nation's success.
Several initiatives we have undertaken this year are moving
us strongly in that direction. We, for example, have put our
patent and trademark database up on the Internet, freely
searchable. We have established an Office of Quality Management
to reorganize and consolidate our quality management function,
and we have established the Office of Independent Inventor
Programs to deal with the unique needs of one of our most
important constituencies.
I look forward to working with this committee to help
ensure that the PTO is given the resources and flexibility it
needs to meet all of our challenges, and I look forward to
working with the committee and the intellectual property
community on the many domestic and international intellectual
property issues that are before this committee. I also want to
thank friends and supporters that are here today to support me,
and also thank many of the supporters in the intellectual
property community for their support--the INTA, AIPLA, BIO, and
others.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today and I am happy to answer any questions
as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dickinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Q. Todd Dickinson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today. I want to thank you, Senator
Specter, for your introduction and support. I would also like to thank
Secretary Daley for recommending my nomination as Assistant Secretary
of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and the
President for nominating me to this important post.
Mr. Chairman, almost two years ago, I left an intellectual property
practice at the law firm of Dechert, Price, and Rhoades, in
Philadelphia and came to Washington, D.C. to serve in this
Administration. Indeed, it was just over a year ago that I was
considered by this Committee, and later confirmed by the full Senate,
for the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Deputy
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. I very much appreciate the
courtesy and consideration you gave my nomination at that time, Mr.
Chairman.
During my service as Deputy Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks,
it has been a great pleasure and opportunity for me to work with you,
the other members of this Committee, and your staff on a variety of
important issues. One of the things that I have found particularly
gratifying is the extent to which intellectual property issues are
addressed on a non-partisan basis. This is a tradition which I believe
is clearly in our nation's best interest and one which I have tried to
follow during my time in office.
Prior to joining the Commerce Department, I spent almost two
decades working as an intellectual property practitioner, first in
Pittsburgh, then in San Francisco, and most recently in Philadelphia.
During that time, I worked in all aspects of intellectual property law
and management, including patent prosecution, trademark and copyright
protection, strategic development and counseling, brand management,
licensing, technology transfer, and litigation.
I have also had the good fortune to represent the entire spectrum
of intellectual property constituencies--from individual inventors and
educational institutions to small businesses and corporation clients--
in a wide range of disciplines, including biotechnology, refinery
processing and chemical manufacture, environmental technologies,
pharmaceuticals, health-care products, business and financial software
and recreational equipment.
Throughout my career, I have also tried to devote myself to public
service and to giving back to my community. Indeed, while working for
Chevron in San Francisco, I was very proud to be given the opportunity
to serve the public when Senator, then Mayor, Feinstein appointed me to
serve as Chair of the San Francisco Parking Authority. Since that time,
I have also served in a number of other public capacities.
It is, therefore, a distinct honor for me to be before you today as
the nominee to head the Patent and Trademark Office, one of the oldest
agencies in the federal government, and an agency with a
Constitutionally mandated goal of ``promot[ing] the progress of science
and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to * * * inventors
the exclusive right to their * * * discoveries.''
I believe that no single issue is more important in shaping the
future growth and development of the world economy than intellectual
property. From biotechnology to semiconductors to the Internet, the
people who make decisions about investment, research, and development
rely on strong intellectual property protection. Without a strong
mechanism to incent and protect investment, our nation would not be
growing as fast as it is today. Accordingly, the PTO plays an active
role in advising other Executive Branch agencies on domestic
intellectual property laws and plays a leadership role in formulating
international intellectual property policy.
I strongly believe that managing the agency's growth, ensuring the
high-quality of our products and services, and maintaining America's
position as the international leader in intellectual property are the
keys to the agency's success. That is why since coming to the PTO I
have focused my efforts in three key areas.
First, with respect to automation, this past March the agency added
to its Web site 20 million pages of images to the searchable text of
the 2 million patents granted since 1976. This electronic library of
late 20th century science and technology is available free on PTO's Web
page and was, in part, prompted by Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy's
continued interest in making important technical information accessible
to rural areas.
Today, all pending and registered trademarks are also available on
line and we are well on our way toward making all 6 million plus
patents and one million plus trademarks available free on the Internet
by 2001. In addition, I am pleased to report that the PTO now accepts
electronic Trademark applications and that we have received over 12,000
such applications in just the last nine months.
Second, I came to the PTO concerned about its relationship with
independent inventors. Having represented independent inventors in
private practice, I understand their concerns and am working hard to
address them. That is why we established the Office of Independent
Inventor Programs, an initiative aimed at meeting the special needs of
an important PTO constituency--inventors working for themselves or for
small business.
Third, to keep our patent system strong, we must invest in the
management and efficiency of the PTO. As you know, Mr. Chairman, our
nation's intellectual property system is more robust than ever before,
and business is booming at the Patent and Trademark Office. Patent
applications increased 25 percent in the last two years and trademark
filings are up nearly 25 percent this year alone.
The PTO, unlike many government agencies, is very much a business.
In order to meet the needs and demands of our customers, we need to
ensure that we have highly-skilled staff who are equipped with the
resources they need. I am pleased to report that we are successfully
managing the agency's growth through strategic hiring of a diverse,
well-educated workforce, as well as increased utilization of state-of-
the-art automation technology.
To handle the explosive growth in patent and trademark filings, the
PTO hired more than 700 new patent examiners last year and is on track
to hire an additional 800 patent examiners this year. In the trademark
arena, 230 new trademark attorneys have been hired since November 1997,
nearly doubling the size of that workforce.
We are also making great strides in improving the efficiency of our
work. For example, this year we have reduced pendency for first action
on trademark applications from 7.9 months to 4.9 months. We are also
well on our way to reducing cycle time for patent applications to 85
percent of all patents in 12 months by 2001 and all patents in 12
months by 2003.
Turning to the international arena, the PTO will continue to work
on strengthening the international intellectual property system and
ensuring that U.S. intellectual property holders--whether patents,
copyrights, trademarks, or any of the other forms of intellectual
property--enjoy sufficient legal protection around the world. In the
next year, I anticipate that the PTO will be participating in the
following developments:
First, we will be leading the United States' delegation at a WIPO
Diplomatic Conference to develop a Patent Law Treaty which, we hope,
will establish shared procedural and application standards for patents
around the world. After working for years on these standards, it is our
hope that we will also be able to turn to the long-term question of
converging substantive standards for patenting.
At the same time, we will also be working on simplification of the
existing Patent Cooperation Treaty. I believe that streamlining and
modernizing this treaty will help American industry preserve its
ability to commercialize American ingenuity all over the world.
On the copyright front, the PTO will continue to lead the
Administration's efforts in international discussions about audio-
visual performers rights and protection for non-copyrighted databases--
two issues left open after the 1996 Diplomatic Conference which
established the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty. On the issue of audiovisual performers rights, the
United States is committed to working in WIPO to achieve a compromise
on the protection of audiovisual performers rights that will further
the goals of all relevant U.S. interest groups, performers as well as
film producers.
Even with all these activities and achievements, Mr. Chairman, much
work remains to ensure that the PTO can manage its growth and ensure
high-quality products and services while maintaining our ability to be
a strong advocate for our nation's intellectual property. We are
blessed with the greatest intellectual property system in the world,
and I am deeply committed to ensuring that we retain--and build upon--
that status well into the next millennium.
I look forward to working with this Committee to help ensure that
PTO is given the resources and flexibility it needs to do just that.
And I also look forward to working with this Committee and the
intellectual property community on the many domestic and international
intellectual property issues that are before this Committee.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today. Now I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you both. I want to swear you both in.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Dickinson. I do.
Mr. Marshall. I do.
questioning by senator hatch
The Chairman. Thank you. Let me begin with questions for
you, Mr. Dickinson.
In Florida Prepaid Post-Secondary Education Expense Board
v. College Savings Bank, the Supreme Court found that Congress
did not have the power to abrogate the State's 11th amendment
immunity under the 14th amendment's due process clause. The
United States intervened unsuccessfully to defend the law at
risk; namely, the Plant Patent and Plant Variety Protection
Remedy Clarification Act. Now, this appears to leave patent
owners with no effective remedy against infringement of their
rights by State institutions and may be the harbinger of
exposure for other intellectual property rights as well.
Can you tell us what you believe the impact of this
decision on the Supreme Court's companion cases will be and
what sorts of remedies, if any, might be appropriate for
Congress or the administration to pursue?
Mr. Dickinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start off by
saying I am not a constitutional lawyer, I am an intellectual
property owner.
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Dickinson. But let me also comment on the case a little
bit. This is obviously, as you suggested, an extremely
difficult issue. It is one which has caused great concern in
the intellectual property community. Because if you follow the
decision in its broadest terms it would suggest that States are
free to infringe the intellectual property rights of
intellectual property owners across this country. And that
obviously the potential for that is obviously very, very
significant.
I think that the impact potentially is a great one, and I
would hope that we could work with this committee to craft new
legislation that would address minimizing that impact,
hopefully reducing it down to nothing. And also we, I think,
need to work with States who have also--the opinions, as I
understand them, suggest that States obviously have the power
to remedy this question, and perhaps we should also be working
with States and State legislatures to deal with it.
The Chairman. As you know, Senator Leahy and I have
championed patent reform legislation in the Senate for a number
of years. This is an important part of which would reorganize
the Patent and Trademark Office to enable it to better respond
to the needs of its customers, which are American businesses
and innovators.
The House of Representatives just recently passed its
version of the Patent Reform legislation, H.R. 1907, which I
understand is based upon the legislation this committee
reported in 1997. Now, will the administration be seeking any
additional changes to title VI of that bill--and that, of
course, deals with patent and PTO reforms--or its Senate
counterpart? And if so, what are they likely to be?
Mr. Dickinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you correctly, again, point out, the legislation which
the House passed was very heavily influenced by the legislation
which you and your committee worked on in the last session. And
I think many of us in the intellectual property community are
very interested in seeing this legislation move forward.
With specific regard to title VI, the administration has
not taken a position formally yet on it, but we have been very
heavily involved with the relevant House subcommittee and with
your staff, in terms of dealing with a number of issues that
are of a concern to us.
I think one of the challenges we face is whether, because
this is a very carefully crafted compromise, we want to go in a
particularly strong direction in making changes or whether we
are comfortable with the way the legislation is currently
crafted. I think in most of its provisions, we are currently
comfortable. But we have engaged in discussions with your staff
and Senator Leahy's staff about the possibility of some
additional changes.
The Chairman. OK; well, we'd appreciate it if you would get
a little more public about it. Because we'd like to pass that
bill.
Now, I spent quite a lot of time trying to curb the
practice of diverting PTO fee revenue in the appropriations
process to fund unrelated Federal spending. Although we have
had some success in rescinding the patent fee surcharge that
was so often raided for this purpose, congressional
appropriators now seem to have turned to a practice of carrying
over, which is an increasingly--carrying over an increasingly
larger amount of PTO user fees each year, which still prevents
the PTO from spending this money that it collects when
collected.
Now, I am told that Congress might increase the amount of
carryover for fiscal year 2000 to as much as $272 million. What
will be the impact on PTO and its operations if that scenario
becomes a reality?
Mr. Dickinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you can
appreciate, that possibility--and it is a very real one because
the House appropriations bill which is currently in conference
with the Senate bill does indeed take another, or is proposed
to take another $51 million from our fee revenue and put it
into the carryover. That impact could be very significant on
operations.
We have been embarking, for example, on a fairly
substantial hiring program to meet what have been enormous
increases in our workload. We have had a 25-percent increase in
our workload on the trademark side this past year alone, we
have got a 25-percent increase in our patent workload, patent
application workload, in the last 2 years. These were
unforeseen in many ways. And we need to bring the resources to
bear to take care of that. And if there are significant
cutbacks or changes in our request, that could very, very
materially impact our work, the quality of our work and the
pendency of our work, which are the two key measures.
The Chairman. Well, as you know, we are interested because
the burdens have shifted 25 percent upward, and we are
interested in what kind of approaches you are going to take to
try and get approvals through as quickly as possible.
So, naturally, that is one of the charges I hope we can
give to you here as we move ahead with your nomination because
we would like to see that work a little bit better. And I kind
of resent the games that are played with those monies. On the
other hand, it is pretty tough, on the appropriations
committees today, too, to find the monies that they need just
to keep things going throughout the Government.
Let me turn to you, Mr. Marshall. After the bombing of the
Federal building in Oklahoma City and the letter bomb that
killed the 11th Circuit Federal Judge in Birmingham several
years ago, what steps has the Marshal Service taken to increase
the protection of Federal courthouses and Federal judges
whenever they are not at the courthouse?
Mr. Marshall. We conducted a vulnerability assessment
shortly after the bombing in Oklahoma City, which has resulted
in several upgrades, enhancements in our courthouses throughout
this country. We are still lacking in a majority of the
courthouses, and we are pressing on to get the funding to make
the additional security changes that we need to do.
As far as the judges when they are off-site, which is where
they are the most vulnerable, when they have left the
courthouse, recently our Judicial Security Division came out
with a very detailed booklet for the judges giving them tips on
their security, off-site security. So, in that regard, we have
already addressed it, but we will continue to. And that is our
primary mission, and we will do everything we can to enhance
the security of the judiciary.
The Chairman. Thank you. Your service on the Deputy
Candidate Review Panel, which reviewed applications for
employment for the Marshal Service, in my opinion, was very
important. Without trustworthy U.S. marshals, neither judges
nor persons in the witness security program would be safe.
Given the increasing threat of domestic and foreign terrorism
and or organized crime, the integrity and loyalty of employees
of the U.S. Marshal Service is more important than ever.
Now, if you are confirmed as director, what steps will you
take to ensure that the Marshal Service hires persons with the
highest integrity and qualifications?
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I would see to it
that we continue our current Deputy Review Panel, which is made
up of two U.S. marshals and an instructor from our academy at
Glencoe. They are the final step before any deputy is hired.
They look at the entire package, including the background. And
over the years, since that process started in 1995, we have
made significant improvements, beginning with the interviews,
on through the process. So I would continue that process to
make sure that we get the most qualified candidates.
The Chairman. As a former State trooper in the State of
Virginia, you have a great deal of experience with State law
enforcement. And as the U.S. marshal for the Eastern District
of Virginia, you have had Federal law enforcement experience as
well. Federal judges, especially circuit judges, often travel
substantial distances to courthouses as part of their judicial
duties.
Now, what types of protections do these Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals judges have when they are on the road? And do
you believe that increased cooperation with various State law
enforcement agencies would provide better protection for these
officials?
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, I do agree that coordination
with the State and local officials would be of tremendous
assistance to us. We do depend on our judges. If there is any
information that we are not aware of which could be regarded as
a threat, any inappropriate communication, that they let us
know about that, and we do investigate it. And in the event
that a judge is going to be traveling, we do do a threat
assessment, and if necessary, we provide protection during that
trip.
The Chairman. Administration of the Federal Asset
Forfeiture System is one of the important duties for which the
U.S. Marshal Service is responsible. In recent years, however,
the Federal Forfeiture System has come under severe criticism.
Now, your service on the Asset Forfeiture Leadership Council
makes you especially qualified to oversee the operation of the
Forfeiture System.
If you were confirmed as director, what improvements, if
any, would you make or would you suggest and implement for the
administration of the Forfeiture System?
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Asset
Forfeiture Leadership Council, I work closely with the U.S.
attorneys asset forfeiture group, also, and we jointly crafted
a best-practices memorandum of understanding to be signed by
each U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal, and they have been signed
by the majority of the U.S. attorneys throughout the country.
Our primary role is in the preseizure planning, is where we
have been lacking in the past, and I will work towards, if
confirmed, to improving our role in preseizure planning.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Sessions, we will turn to you.
questioning by senator sessions
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marshall, I think, as you know, the forfeiture
questions are real serious now, and we have some legislation
that I believe probably go too far, and other members, in
curtailing the legitimate ability of the Marshal Service and
the U.S. attorneys and other Federal agencies from seizing ill-
gotten, illegally attained, illegally used assets that I see no
basis for them to keep.
Why should a criminal be able to commit a criminal activity
and be able to keep the profits of it even? And then we pay to
put them in jail. It's really an illogical thing. I know there
have been some concerns about the practice, that some horror
stories have been told. From what I can see, most of those are
in State court, not done by Federal court, but some have been
done in Federal court. So I am working with a number of
persons, including the--and with the Department of Justice to
draft some legislation I think will curtail the abuses in that
area and improve--curtail the abuses, but not gut the ability
of the Department to act.
Let me ask you, are you aware of the statistical changes in
asset forfeiture cases over the last, say, half-dozen years
filed by the Marshal Service?
Mr. Marshall. As a whole, over the last few years, our work
has gone done in the asset forfeiture area.
Senator Sessions. I do not know what is causing that. Do
you have an opinion for why those cases have dropped off?
Mr. Marshall. I think possibly it is our increased role in
preseizure planning, which we are able to provide information
to the seizing agencies that they do not come up on in their
investigation. So sometimes a property that may look like a
good one to forfeit, actually, when we take a good look at it,
is not one that we should proceed with.
Senator Sessions. I think that is a legitimate concern of
the Marshal's Office. But I think is it not also true that the
Federal Department of Justice policy has reduced the
cooperative partnership, the adoptive forfeitures, in which a
case may be made by the State system they could be forfeited in
State or Federal, and the Federal Government is taking less of
those cases?
Mr. Marshall. That could be possible, Senator.
Senator Sessions. I think that is part of it. I think there
are a lot of advantages to a local law enforcement agency to
bring cases in Federal court. It also melds the agencies more
as partners, instead of competitors.
Mr. Marshall. Yes.
Senator Sessions. When you are working together to help a
city police chief forfeit a complex amount of property from a
criminal and that chief gets to benefit, at least to some
degree, from the forfeited assets, you build a bond, do you not
agree, that is important?
Mr. Marshall. I agree. Yes, sir, Senator.
Senator Sessions. So I just hope that your experience on
this committee will lead you to be active in that.
And, also, I will ask you to look at the staff you have
assigned to it. I remember probably in the eighties, late
eighties, when marshals were given special rank or high pay-
grade positions for forfeiture specialist. And it troubles me
that if we are having a decline, maybe we do not need high-paid
forfeiture specialists if they are not carrying on a basic
level of work. So just from a management point of view, I would
hope that you would look at that and encourage and promote
that.
Do you, personally--how do you feel about that? Do you,
personally, feel that the Marshal Service should be active in
partnering with State and local law enforcement in forfeiture
of assets?
Mr. Marshall. Having spent 14 years with the Virginia State
Police, yes, sir, Senator. I am very supportive of that. And it
is one of the tasks that I enjoy doing, is when we have an
equitable sharing check to be able to sign that check and take
part in the presentation of it. Partnership is crucial in law
enforcement throughout the country.
Senator Sessions. I think a lot of people start theorizing
about forfeiture, and they do not understand the reality. These
are ill-gotten gains that the criminal should not be able to
keep, and it is a practical partnership, teamwork effort, State
and Federal, and I can tell that you understand that.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you.
Senator Sessions. And I know you will do well at that.
On the question of patents, Mr. Dickinson, what is the
status of the patent building that is being talked about?
Mr. Dickinson. The building, Senator?
Senator Sessions. Yes, the new building.
Mr. Dickinson. About 1\1/2\ months ago, the GSA announced
that they have completed the process of evaluation of final
bids. They have announced which of the final bids they were
prepared to award the lease to. That is a company called Elcor,
Inc., and the site which they proposed, which GSA proposed to
build it on is in Alexandria, about 3 miles down the road from
where we are now, the so-called Carlisle site right near the
King Street Metro stop.
There is some ongoing litigation at the moment. Our
landlord is concerned about us moving out of our current
facility, as you can imagine, and he has brought several
actions in Federal court to have the courts take a look at
that. We have won one of those, and the other one is pending
now in the District Court for the District of Columbia, and the
judge has that under consideration now with regards obligations
under NEPA.
Senator Sessions. What is the latest cost of this new
building, projected cost?
Mr. Dickinson. The developer and GSA, to my understanding,
has not projected an actual cost for the building itself. We
will be leasing the building, so there has not been a final
cost estimate for the actual building itself. The committee
that reviewed this from GSA reported back to me, and we were
very pleased by this, that the winning bid will allow us to pay
less in rent per square foot than we currently pay. So that's
something that we're very pleased with. We are, hopefully,
saving a few dollars.
Senator Sessions. Is that the total for the whole total
cost?
Mr. Dickinson. That is my understanding, yes.
Senator Sessions. Including the parking area and all of
that?
Mr. Dickinson. They charge us rent for all of the parking
and all of the office space, yes, Senator.
Senator Sessions. Well, the numbers that I saw when I was
on the Public Works Committee for the patent building were
shocking, I thought, and I had serious doubts about whether we
had to have a new one. I do not know where you are now in that
process. But I was concerned about it.
Let me ask one thing, and, Mr. Chairman, I will finish. You
said, I believe, in remarks on Tokyo, about--you said, in
response to the first question,
Most would state that there should be a global patent
in 2010. All of us can list the probable benefits of a
global patent system. I'm sure that we would all
believe that such a system would reduce costs for
inventors and make it dramatically simpler to obtain
protection and would provide uniformity of protection
in the world.
I think you mentioned that later in another address, maybe
previously through the International Patent Society in
September 1998 you say, ``A global patent system is, in
principle, a very worthy goal.''
Is it your position we need a global patent system?
Mr. Dickinson. I think that, yes, it is definitely my
position that we need one. I think we need to move towards,
particularly today, when the Internet and other--and the
globalization of the economy leads to a situation where
inventors, small and large, and particularly small inventors,
independent inventors, are much more susceptible to
infringement and much less likely to be able to have remedies
because of the cost of the current system worldwide. I think it
is very important that we move in that direction.
There is not a consensus yet in the world of how to do
this. There are a number of suggestions. Do we have one patent
organization that issues patents? Do we give full faith and
credit to other's patents? Do we validate the work of other
offices? There are a lot of suggestions that have been laid
out, and we need to work towards finding an international
consensus. But there is a consensus that we need to have
broader international protection and move away from the cost
associated, in particular, with having a series of national
protections today.
Senator Sessions. Are you aware that there are perils in
that, in that high-tech patent items you can lose control of
them, that other nations who would have access to that could,
in fact, cause a company to lose their patent protections that
have been preserved pretty well in our current system? And is
it not a fact that there are a number of nations who
steadfastly like to counterfeit and compete in violation of
American patents?
Mr. Dickinson. Enforcement is one of the biggest challenges
we face worldwide. I think that is also why having the TRIPS
agreement in place as part of GATT is also extremely beneficial
to this. This would require countries who want to be part of
the WTO to have a minimal threshold level of intellectual
property in their own country. And I think that is one of the
key ways we can get at this enforcement problem worldwide. But
you have definitely put your finger on one of the key issues.
Senator Sessions. There was, apparently, one article that
we came in 1996, Mr. Lehman, who was serving at the time as
U.S. Commissioner of Patents, sought to give Beijing CD-ROM's
containing the entire patent database of 160 years. Are you
familiar with that?
Mr. Dickinson. I am, indeed.
Senator Sessions. It came out in the Cox report.
Mr. Dickinson. Indeed.
Senator Sessions. Do you agree that that was a wise thing?
Mr. Dickinson. We are not--we at this time are not going to
give those--the Congress has forbidden us from giving the CD's
or the bulk tapes of our patent database to the Chinese
government.
Senator Sessions. Do you think that was a wise idea for him
to give away this information, database?
Mr. Dickinson. Well, it is not my--it is probably not best
for me to criticize or comment on my predecessor in that way.
This is publicly available information. But I think that the
Congress has expressed their concern about it, and we are
following their direction.
Senator Sessions. It affects me a little bit in how I vote
for a man in the Patent Office and how you react to that. To
me, that was a very unwise thing. There may be other
opportunities of areas in which the law is somewhat unclear,
and I would like to know whether the extent to which you are so
committed to an international patent procedure that you would
consider that a wise act as a patent commissioner to give up
this information.
Would you tell us how you would personally feel about it?
Mr. Dickinson. Mr. Senator, that information is publicly
available. If someone wanted to come to the office and buy hard
copies of all of our patents, they could do that today. That is
one of our goals, is to make the dissemination of our
information as widely available as possible.
We understand the concerns with regard to the specific
situation in China. I think one of our bigger opportunities is
to work with the Chinese to get their own system developed and
in place. They have a good patent system. They have a fairly
difficult and a system we work with regularly of enforcement.
It is not nearly as good as we would like in China, and we work
with them on a regular basis.
Senator Sessions. Well, it is important.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. We do have a lot of counterfeiting
of that kind of thing around the world. China has been named
repeatedly as being involved in that, and I hope that we will
develop a national policy which protects our legitimate
interest.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Leahy.
questioning by senator leahy
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marshall--I should say Marshal Marshall--you probably
get tired of hearing that, but I am delighted to see you here,
and Jean Marie and your daughter. And, of course, I am always
delighted to see your mother, who is greatly admired by all of
us here.
I enjoy looking back, as I did when you became a marshal,
at your background, nearly 20 years in law enforcement, going
through the ranks in the Virginia State Police, and then to
become a U.S. marshal. I think, frankly, the Marshals Service
is fortunate to have you nominated as Director.
I only have one question and it is just more of a
philosophical one, or actually a managerial one. The U.S.
Marshals Service gets involved more and more in the pursuit and
apprehension of Federal fugitives even up in my State, and I
wonder, are we using local police enough for that. I mean, you
can only stretch yourself so thin, and I just ask you, from
your own experience as U.S. Marshal in Virginia, but also
before that in the Virginia State Police, do you think the
Marshals Service could use local authorities more in the
pursuit of Federal fugitives?
Mr. Marshall. Definitely, Senator. I think the task force
approach is the way to go. In Eastern Virginia, for the last 2
years, for 3-month periods we conducted a joint task force in
the city of Richmond with terrific results. It is definitely--
the task force approach as far as fugitive apprehension is the
way to go, and certainly we depend on the State and the locals
to help us in our investigations and we are more than happy to
help them with theirs.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Dickinson, we were talking about patents
all being on CD-ROM's. Are those available for other people,
the past--I mean, basically, the archives of the Patents and
Trademarks, is that on CD-ROM now?
Mr. Dickinson. Yes, it is.
Senator Leahy. And who can have that? I mean, could Senator
Hatch walk over and buy a copy of those, as Hatch Enterprises?
Mr. Dickinson. If he had about $250,000, he could indeed
walk over. The only--again, the only entity that we are
prohibited from selling it to is the Chinese government.
Senator Leahy. So if Singapore bought it and then
transferred it to China, I mean they could buy it. Once they
bought it, it could go to anybody?
Mr. Dickinson. Patent data has traditionally been publicly
available. That is part of the theory behind the system is to
make the--that is actually the basis of the patent system, is
to make the invention public so that others can build on it and
improve it and move technology forward.
Senator Leahy. Well, of course, that is the reason for my
question. I mean, somebody could go over there with a pencil
and paper--and, of course, it would take forever to do it, but
could sit down there and literally just copy all these things
that are in the public record. Is that correct?
Mr. Dickinson. That is true.
Senator Leahy. Whether they are from the Chinese embassy or
from the University of Vermont?
Mr. Dickinson. That is true.
Senator Leahy. I just didn't want anybody to think that we
are suddenly giving out some amazing thing that is not
available to any Chinese scholar or British scholar or German
scholar or anybody else who might come here.
What I do worry about is when other nations fail to protect
the patents, trademarks, and copyrights of American owners. And
I would ask you, if confirmed, that you be very, very
aggressive in helping to protect us. Our intellectual property
in this country is one of our most valuable assets. It is
certainly one of our most valuable export assets. It helps us
get the support for our schools, the educational system,
everything, plus the millions of jobs it creates. If it is not
respected in a world where international commerce is the rule
of the day, then we lose all that. So I would urge you to be
extremely aggressive in helping to protect that.
Mr. Dickinson. I will.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I know all the questions have
been asked. I think Mr. Dickinson is extremely well-qualified
from having read his background. And, of course, John Marshall
is somebody I have known and watched, and we have had the
privilege of working with his brother in earlier days on this
committee before he threw us overboard for another part of the
Federal Government. I would hope that both of them would be
confirmed quickly.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, thank you.
We appreciate both of you being here. With that, I think we
will just end this hearing. I think you both have acquitted
yourselves well, and we will look forward to trying to get you
confirmed.
So, with that, we will adjourn until further notice. Thank
you for being here.
[The questionnaires of Messrs. Marshall and Dickinson are
retained in the Committee files.]
[Whereupon, at 10:36 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions and Answers
----------
Responses of Q. Todd Dickinson to Questions From Senator Strom Thurmond
Question 1. Mr. Dickinson, concerns have been raised for some time
that it takes too long for the PTO to process patent applications. What
concerns do you have in this regard, and do you have plans to try to
speed the process for reviewing patent applications?
Answer 1. I agree that it takes too long to process patent
applications and I am committed to reducing pendency time. As you know,
we are inundated with work. Between 1990 and 1998, the number of annual
utility patent applications increased 42 percent, 12 percent of which
was in the last year. We projected that in 1999 the number of
applications would increase 7.2 percent over the 1998 numbers, but in
the year-to-date, we are seeing 11.5 percent growth. Furthermore, as a
result of the Federal Circuit's decision in State Street Bank, which
validated the fact that business methods are patentable, we expect to
see many more applications claiming methods of doing business to be
filed at the PTO.
Obviously, it is a challenge just to accommodate these large
increases. To handle this growth, we're doing what any business would
do: hire the best people and give them the best training and tools to
do their jobs. Last year, we hired more than 700 new patent examiners
and we are on track to hire 700 more this year, next year and the year
after that. Of the new patent examiners we have hired, most are in
computer and information processing technologies. Historically, the
typical new hire examiner has had a bachelor's degree in engineering,
chemistry, or physical sciences, but I'm pleased to tell you that one-
third of all examiners hired last year in the computer technology area
have a Masters or a Ph.D. in engineering, computer science, or
mathematics. In light of the decision in State Street Bank we are also
looking for, and finding, examiners with the appropriate scientific
training that also have academic backgrounds or experience in the
business arena.
The Examiner's we have now are highly skilled and highly educated;
we have 450 Ph.D.'s and over 400 attorneys. However, we are also
working hard to increase the amount of training these examiners
receive--because that is key to increased productivity and higher
quality of patent claims we allow and trademarks we register. In 1999,
on the patent side, we will devote over 100,000 hours to training new
examiners in PTO procedures. In addition to this training for new
examiners, this year, we will provide our existing examiner corps with
over 20,000 hours in legal training, over 30,000 hours in training in
using our automated search systems, and over 5,000 hours in technical
training. I have initiated a top to bottom review of our training by a
Blue Ribbon panel of both internal and external experts, and we are
actively considering even more substantial increases in training as we
plan our 2001 budget.
Some of the on-duty training for examiners is directed at the new
electronic research tools we are putting at their command. Today, from
her desktop, a patent examiner can electronically access the full text
of all U.S. patents going back to 1971 and the images of all U.S.
patents since 1790. In addition, examiners can access English-language
translations of abstracts of 3.5 million Japanese patents with images;
English-language translations of abstracts of 2.2 million European
patents with images; and over 5,200 non-patent literature journals
available through commercial services and materials we load in-house.
In August, we will add IBM technical disclosure bulletins to the
desktop resources available to our examiners.
We has slashed the time it takes us to examine patents from over 18
months a year and a half ago, to 10.9 months and dropping. Our goal is
85 percent of patent in 12 months by 2001 and all patents in 12 months
or less by 2003. We are also reducing the time it takes to print patent
applications but starting the printing process immediately after
mailing the notice of allowance. This has already shaved almost three
months off of the time it takes to issue a patent.
We will begin piloting the electronic filing of patent applications
and the automated status check in the fall of 1999, allowing you to
find out the status on-line. Electronic filing is much more complex
because patent applications are not standardized, applications are
complex and the examination process more complicated. Nonetheless, we
are committed to the development and implementation of a complete
electronic filing system for patents by 2003.
Question 2. Mr. Dickinson, the Administration has attempted to and
sometimes has been successful in diverting patent fees to fund other
government programs, which has raised many concerns. Please discuss
this issue and why it is important for the PTO to maintain the fees
that it generates.
Answer 2. I am very concerned about the diversion of our customers
fees. The PTO is a fully fee funded agency. Our customers, both
domestic and international, pay these fees in advance of receipt of the
finished product or service and they expect their fees to be used only
for the services we provide, much like a business. In the year 2000,
for example, it is very likely that our customers will submit nearly
600,000 patent and trademark applicants to the PTO. That is a
significant level of activity. The customer files his or her
application in anticipation of a timely and high quality patent issue
or trademark registration. When PTO fees are used for other purposes,
timeliness and quality suffer. In addition, our plans to reengineer and
automate our functions to prepare for a technologically dependent 21st
century also suffer when fees are withheld. More importantly, delayed
patent and trademark applications adversely effect our economy by
slowing the sharing of new innovations and commercialization of new
products and services.
In international intellectual property arenas, the US criticizes
developing nations for using their patent fees as supplements to the
national treasury. We have to ask ourselves if we are properly serving
our customers when we use PTO fees for purposes other than those
intended. I am concerned about future withholding of earned fees and
intend to continue discussions within the Administration to formulate a
strategy on PTO fees that addresses this issue, while keeping in mind
the desires of both Congress and the Administration to balance the
budget and reduce the national debt.
Question 3. Mr. Dickinson, what are the primary issues facing the
PTO today that you plan to address if confirmed?
Answer 3. I believe that the Patent and Trademark Office needs to
focus on three issues. First, we need to manage growth. That is, we
need to meet the challenges created by the dramatic growth in the
number of patent and trademark applications that we receive. We are
aggressively moving to meet the many growth related challenges facing
this agency. Second, we need to manage quality. That is, we need to
change the way we look at ``quality'' in the Office and improve the
quality of our products and services we offer. Finally, we need to
manage the future. That is, we need to prepare our intellectual
property systems--domestic and international--for the demands of the
new global electronic marketplace.
As to managing quality, we are adding staff and improving our tools
and that will certainly solve many of our quality related problems.
But, these steps are insufficient unless they ultimately result in
ensuring that the quality of our products and services remains high.
When I arrived at the Office, I began to ask questions about the types
of quality improvement efforts that the Office had in place. I found
the patent and trademark quality review organizations and disparate
efforts to improve the quality scattered around the organization. For
example, the quality review organizations were only looking at the
``end product'' By the standards of the late 1960s or early 1970s,
these were probably model programs. Today, however, most management
experts agree that you cannot improve the quality of an organization
and its products just by looking solely at the final product,
particularly if you are trying to hold down costs. It was obvious that
the Office needed an integrated quality management system. As a result,
I reorganized and consolidated our quality efforts under one ``Quality
Czar,'' responsible for coordinating quality throughout the agency.
Managing the future is a complicated task. Today, goods and
information can flow with unprecedented ease across borders. Effective
protection for inventions, trademarks, works of authorship, and
confidential business information must be available in all markets at a
reasonable price. All of these forces are being driven by the fact that
our economy is increasingly intertwined with the global economy. As to
patents and trademark protection, our current model of essentially
national and regional systems does not meet the needs of today's
inventors or businesses whether they are small or large because we are
now operating in a global economy.
Increasingly, the international patent system--or lack thereof--is
too cumbersome and expensive. Inventors cannot afford to obtain
protection in all of the necessary markets around the world. Even big
companies are now forced to forego protection for some markets or for
some inventions and will have to forego more unless relief is provided.
For smaller enterprises and individuals, the situation may be even
worse. Protection for their inventions in critical markets may not be
possible financially in the time frames dictated by law. At best, this
situation will lead to decreased profitability for all and, at worst,
extinction for smaller enterprises that traditionally supply
significant technological advances. I am determined to seek to promote
the strongest possible intellectual property protection for our
citizens and businesses in the international marketplace.
______
Responses of Q. Todd Dickinson to Questions From Senator Charles E.
Grassley
Question 1. Mr. Dickinson, certain allegations of inappropriate
behavior have been brought to my attention that I'd like you to
address. I understand that, according to these allegations, employees
of the Patent and Trademark Office, specifically members of Patent
Professional Association, may have been inappropriately restrained from
contacting members of Congress about concerns they had regarding PTO
office move and how PTO is run. If true, these are serious charges. It
is important that the employees of the PTO not be subject to
intimidation, threats of coercion, and that they be able to exercise
their rights under the law. First, could you respond to these
allegations? Have these concerns been resolved?
Answer 1. I have never in any way restrained, threatened,
intimidated or coerced any employee of the PTO, including members of
the Patent Office Professionals Association (POPA), with respect to
contacting Members of Congress to express their views on any subject
whatsoever.
The specific allegations you reference appear to originate in a
message (copy attached) sent anonymously to a Member of Congress
voicing displeasure with the result of negotiations we conducted with
POPA this past spring over the PTO space procurement. These
negotiations resulted in an agreement between management and leadership
of POPA which included POPA's commitment, as an organization, to not
oppose the PTO space procurement. It is my understanding that this
negotiated resolution was taken to the Executive Committee of POPA for
their consideration, and that ultimately both the Executive Committee
and the full membership of the union voted to approve the agreement.
The settlement agreement with POPA simply indicates that POPA as an
organization has agreed to remain publicly neutral on our space
consolidation project. Nothing in that agreement in any way restrains
employees at the PTO from contacting Members of Congress about concerns
they have regarding the PTO space procurement or about how the PTO is
run.
At some point after this vote, the attached e-mail was apparently
sent anonymously to several Members of Congress voicing displeasure
with the outcome and alleging inappropriate behavior on my part. I was
contacted by those Members and promptly responded that there was no
basis to the anonymous allegations. Those same Members referred the
allegations to the General Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate and
the GAO, after consultation with the Department of Commerce's Inspector
General (10), responded by closing out the investigation (copy
attached). Additionally, the IG advised the GAO that ``many of the
allegations either appeared too vague to indicate a problem or related
to matters that did not merit investigation.'' Moreover, when the
President of POPA heard of these allegations, he, on his own
initiative, wrote a letter (copy attached) to those Members verifying
that those allegations were indeed false.
I understand your concern about these allegations, and I take them
very seriously. Let me reiterate that at no time have I caused any
member of POPA or any employee of the USPTO to be restrained in any way
from contacting Congress on any matter whatsoever. I agree that it is--
important that employees of the PTO be able to exercise their rights,
and I will ensure that their rights continue to be respected.
Question 2. Are you committed to ensuring that PTO employees will
be free from an environment of intimidation and coercion, and that they
will not be restrained from exercising their legal rights if you are
confirmed as Commissioner of PTO?
Answer 2. Absolutely. If confirmed, I will continue to ensure that
PTO employees are free from an environment of intimidation and coercion
and that they will be able to exercise their legal rights.
Question 3. What have you done, to date, to accomplish this goal?
Answer 3. Since coming to the PTO, I have made a significant effort
to forge a new, positive working relationship with all of our unions,
including POPA, by taking a new approach to this agency's labor-
management relations.
Specifically, I charged the Office of Human Resources with
developing a proposal for consideration by our executive committee
dealing with those issues. Since that time we have successfully engaged
an expert Labor Relations Blue Ribbon Panel which included the
Department of Commerce's Office of General Counsel. This team conducted
an assessment of the labor environment, interviewing over 40 management
and union officials within PTO, and conducted a best practice study of
successful partnership councils looking specifically at National
Partnership Award winners.
Armed with this information, we have begun implementing a labor-
management relations initiative which has, among other goals, re-
instituted our defunct Partnership Council, created a special group
comprised of PTO managers and the three union presidents which meets
biweekly, and increased staffing in our Human Resources Department. We
held our first Partnership Council meeting on September 30, 1999, I
believe that all of these steps have had a dramatic, positive, and
permanent impact on our labor-management relations.
______
Q. Todd Dickinson, Acting Patent Commissioner Offer to the Patent
Office Professional Organization (P.O.P.A.--Union)
POPA is the union for the Patent Office examiners. They are engaged
in a dispute over a new lavish patent office building which is $1.3
billion. The most expensive government building in history. The
building is to be paid for by inventors, who will lease it for 20 years
and at that time will then have the right to buy the building at the
going market price.
The Union is also engaged in stopping ``corporatization'' of the
patent office and their attendant loss of civil service status if the
``corporatization'' goes through Q. Todd Dickinson, the Acting
Commissioner of Patents addressed these issues to the President of the
Union, in a meeting on Monday, February 21 and Tuesday, February 22nd.
Particulars of his offer to the examiners follows which was an
ultimatum offer which Acting Commissioner Dickinson claimed that
Secretary of Commerce, Richard Daley sanctioned to the examiners have
no recourse.
1. The Union has a bank of 10,000 hours of work. The Acting
Commissioner told them he would take away their bank and see how
hard they would have to work to get it back in two years. (Note: If
there is no bank of hours there is not a Union organization.)
2. The Union and it's members are prohibited from speaking to their
Congressman.
3. The Acting Commissioner informed the Union executives that they
would be supportive of Q. Todd Dickinson. After this meeting he has
since gone to Congress and testified that all the Unions
substantially support him.
4. The Union is to drop all litigation in disputes with the
management of the patent office on behalf of the Union's members.
The Union cannot represent its members under this edict.
5. There will be no more Congressman Istook (R-OK) stunts in
Appropriations which took funding for moving from the current
patent office.
The Acting Patent Commissioner on February 22 demanded a meeting of
the union executive committee regarding the space for the proposed new
patent building. At that meeting on March 1 the Union voted against the
building. The Commissioner then demanded another meeting and met with
union officials to discuss their obligations. The union vote was over
thrown by three votes at the meeting demanded by the Acting
Commissioner. As a result of the meeting he demanded, the Acting
Commissioner was able to come to Congress and say all the unions
substantially support him.
______
Patent Office Professional Association,
Arlington, VA, May 20, 1999.
Re: Patent and Trademark Office
The Hon. William L. Clay,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Clay: Recently, a letter from you to Mr. Q. Todd
Dickinson, Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, has been
circulated that pertains to allegations made by the National Patent
Association about Mr. Dickinson's mistreatment of POPA and its members.
Thank you for being concerned about our welfare. We are grateful that
you are interested.
However, the allegations about Commissioner Dickinson's
mistreatment of us are false. I am the President of POPA and I did not
contact the National Patent Association about this matter. Nor has
anyone else within POPA been authorized to contact that association
about this matter.
POPA and the PTO have been working hard to establish an honorable
working relationship. We have reached agreements on legal and technical
training, transit subsidies, increased part-time slots, and office
space while Commissioner Dickinson has been in charge. He has made a
positive difference in labor-management relationships here at the PTO.
For approximately the last two years, POPA and the PTO have been
engaged in negotiations concerning, among other things, the allocation
of office space in a new consolidated office complex for the whole
agency. The PTO is currently in the midst of the procurement process
for that office complex. At the end of the negotiations, Commissioner
Dickinson demanded that we stop our opposition to the procurement
process in return for favorable provisions on office space. The
majority of our Executive Committee, POPA's governing body, thought
that this was an acceptable truce since one does not reach a settlement
and then fight against the settlement. But some within our organization
are very upset about our decision to remain silent on the procurement.
I am afraid that their passionate disagreement has lead them to do
things that are unwise.
Unfortunately, the information given to the National Patent
Association is either a distortion created by what must have been
multiple retellings of our space consolidation project negotiations, or
deliberate disinformation. Either way, it is disturbing to have such
false information circulated.
Again, we appreciate your support in investigating these charges.
It is good to know that you are willing to act to ensure honorable
treatment.
Sincerely,
Ronald J. Stern,
President, Patent Office Professional Association.
______
United States General Accounting Office,
Office of Congressional Relations,
Washington, DC, September 9, 1999.
The Hon. William F. Goodling,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This correspondence responds to your July 26,
1999, letter in which you presented various allegations involving the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Generally, the
allegations related to the implementation of new automated systems,
procurement practices, the hiring and promotion of African-Americans,
Illegal lobbying, and other issues. You stated that these allegations
appeared to be very serious and warranted thorough review by our
office.
In considering the allegations raised in your letter, we consulted
with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of
Commerce. We contacted the Commerce OIG because that office routinely
investigates internal matters at USPTO, such as the allegations raised
in your letter. Moreover, as we explained to your staff, our limited
resources presently constrain us from giving your request immediate
attention. It was our intent to gather insights on these allegations
from representatives at the Commerce OIG and to identify any of their
audits or investigations that might address them.
A representative of the OIG told us that the office had no efforts,
either planned or ongoing, which directly related to the allegations.
The OIG stated their interests in gaining a greater appreciation of the
nature and severity of all the allegations in your letter. They welcome
the opportunity to discuss them further with your office.
The OIG also told us that many of the allegations either appeared
too vague to indicate a problem or related to matters that did not
merit investigation. For example, for the allegation concerning the
implementation of new automated systems, the OIG noted some difficulty
in identifying that a problem existed because no specific computer
system was named. The office stated its continual commitment to
monitoring the implementation of new systems being brought on line,
most recently those related to the forthcoming decennial census. Also,
in the contracting area, OIG informed us that the office had recently
conducted reviews and investigations in response to claims similar to
those made in your letter and found no conflicts of interests.
The OIG also suggested that some allegations might be best
addressed by other offices within the Commerce Department.
Specifically, they recommended that issues relating to hiring and
promoting African-Americans could be appropriately addressed by the
department's Office of Civil Rights, and matters related to ethics in
procurement and illegal lobbying might be referred to the Office of
General Counsel.
We would also like to suggest an additional course of action for
your consideration. You may wish to present these allegations to the
newly appointed USPTO commissioner and ask that he consider examining
the merits of these issues as part of his leadership transition.
We hope that our handling of this matter meets your satisfaction.
As agreed with your staff, with this correspondence, GAO will close out
your request that we probe into the allegations made concerning USPTO.
As always, we thank you for your interest in our office. Please do not
hesitate to contact us should you require assistance with other issues.
Sincerely yours,
Glenn G. Davis,
Legislative Advisor.
______
Responses of Q. Todd Dickinson to a Question From Senator Edward M.
Kennedy
Question 1. It has been brought to our attention that there have
been a number of employee problems with operations at the Patent
Office. In fact, a number of unfair labor practice charges have been
filed against the PTO. Specifically, the PTO spent approximately 1.5
billion over the last 15 years to develop and maintain automated data
processing and search tools to support the business of examining and
issuing patents. Over the next five fiscal years, the PTO plans to
spend another 1.0 billion to deploy and maintain new systems which have
less capability than the systems being replaced. The patent examiners
of the PTO have publicly outlined the many inadequacies in the new
system. In March 1999, patent examiners filed charges of unfair labor
practices with the Federal Labor Relations Authority against the PTO
for removing search systems without negotiating the impact of their
removal and replacement. Additionally, in September 1999, patent
examiners filed charges of unfair labor practices against the PTO for
refusing to bargain over automated systems, which the PTO is developing
and deploying. The Patent Office should be one of our most efficient
agencies and legitimate employee concerns that affect the efficiency of
the office should be addressed. Mr. Dickinson, what steps have you or
will you take to address these employee concerns?
Answer 1. Your question touches on two very important issues facing
us in the PTO: leveraging information technology and changing the
culture of our labor relations. As set forth in our fiscal year 2000
Corporate Plan, we have established an ambitious agenda for
transitioning the PTO into the next century. Automating our work
processes is a key strategy to help us achieve PTO's performance goals.
PTO also recognizes that labor and management must work collaboratively
to successfully meet the demands of the PTO of the future.
To that end, I have initiated an assessment of our current labor-
management relationships and conducted a best-practice study of
successful labor-management partnerships found in both the public and
private sectors. These efforts, along with my own numerous discussions
and interactions with PTO employees, union representatives, and
managers, have convinced me that, although we have had several success
stories, we can and must improve our working relationships with all
three unions.
The unfair labor practices referenced in your question are being
reviewed for possible resolution. PTO has every intention of working
with the unions to address all legitimate employee concerns, and we are
reemphasizing our efforts to involve the unions in the process at the
earliest possible point. While even one unfair labor practice is one
too many, I would note that we start the new fiscal year with 30
percent fewer active ULPs than we had at the beginning of fiscal year
1998. We are striving to improve upon this record in the coming fiscal
year.
Last month, I convened a group of over 100 senior managers and
union representatives to launch a program aimed at enhancing our labor
relations within the PTO. During this meeting, I stressed the
importance of demonstrating in our daily actions skills such as
honesty, effective listening, willingness to share ideas and
information, and openness to other viewpoints. By urging all of the
attendees to renew their commitment to these behaviors and attitudes,
and by continuing to encourage training and facilitated activities in
areas such as alternate dispute resolution, we will certainly make some
progress in this regard.
Additionally, I shared the need to link this relationship building
with specific work related issues and opportunities. By having
employees, union representatives, and management representatives
jointly work as teams to solve problems, develop systems and programs,
and meet new challenges, all parties are involved at the pre-decisional
phase of the initiative, thereby further strengthening our relations.
Just as importantly, by obtaining this pre-decisional input, the need
for protracted and unproductive bargaining is greatly reduced. In fact,
since June of this year, we have been following this concept in the
development of our TEAM-XP project, a small-scale test of electronic
patent examination and processing. On a regular basis, examiners,
including union designees, system developers, and management officials
have met and discussed the details of this important project at the
ground phase.
While the changing of attitudes and approaches are certainly
necessary, I have also recognized the need to provide a formal
structure for forging a more effective labor management relationship.
First, I am re-instating our PTO Partnership Council. My vision for the
council is for labor and management to work collaboratively together to
meet the demands of the PTO of the future. I have also added the Chief
Information Officer to the Partnership Council as many of the issues
facing the PTO address changes to the work environment brought about by
automation and I have proposed that the following objectives of this
Council be considered:
Jointly defining an effective labor-management relationship
and the key principles for achieving and maintaining such a
relationship
Benchmarking the best practices of other organizations
Conducting joint training
Developing a communications strategy
Identifying and sponsoring joint projects
Reviewing progress on a regular basis
Further, I will continue to initiate periodic meetings with the
Assistant Commissioners for Patents and Trademarks, the Chief Financial
Officer, the Chief Information Officer, the Director of Human
Resources, and the three employee union presidents to address difficult
areas and evaluate the success of our efforts towards creating a
professional, cooperative and business-like labor-management
environment. These efforts will build on, among other things, past
experiences and successes in partnership which include more than forty
midterm agreements and one term agreement reached through interest
based and/or partnership techniques.
PTO decided to replace the patent text search software in 1994
because it did not have the functionality available in modem text
search tools, was difficult and costly to operate and maintain, was
limited to 200 concurrent users, and was not year 2000 compliant. Since
January 1995, we have annually presented our complete plans for
automation PTO-wide in our Strategic Information Technology Plan. The
plan to replace the patent examiner text search software was first
presented in the fiscal year 1995-fiscal year 2000 Strategic
Information Technology Plan. Progress toward meeting that objective has
been included in each annual update to the PTO Strategic Information
Technology Plan. The plan has been electronically disseminated to all
internal and external parties both on our internal web and on our
external web site since 1997.
Historically, we have made several efforts to alert our examiners
to the changes that they will be experiencing in the years to come. For
example, in June 1998, all examiners were briefed on the upcoming
changes to their work environment in a series of briefings in Crystal
City. All of the projected changes, including the replacement of the
core text search engine and desktop tools, were presented and discussed
with time allowed for questions and answers, Further, all examiners
were given non-production time to allow them to attend, and they were
strongly encouraged to attend.
On the patent automation front, we have indeed been developing and
maintaining automated search tools for the past fifteen years and we
will continue to do so to keep pace with the exponential growth of
available information. In the early 1980's, the PTO launched one of its
first systems, a tool to `text' search a limited number of patents.
Access was provided through shared custom-built workstations and an
examiner had access to all US Patents subsequent to 1970. In the late
80's and early 90's, a limited number of examiners had access to both
the text and images (drawings), again of all US Patents subsequent to
1970.
From examiner focus sessions held in March and April 1994, the
number two ranked priority of patent examiners was to expand the
content of and access to PTO's automated search data bases. The patent
text search engine was a commercial product modified to meet the PTO's
requirements and was expensive to maintain and difficult to learn and
use. In addition, the search engine was limited to 200 concurrent
users. The PTO provided seamless access to external databases in
February 1997, greatly expanded the content of PTO databases in My
1998, and replaced the patent text search engine with a modem COTS
product in March 1999. Working with representatives of the union, we
will continue to enhance or replace those tools to assist our examiners
in providing the highest quality patents.
Today, from a desktop computer, in addition to the full text of 2.5
million U.S. patents, examiners can search commercial databases,
industry specific technical disclosure bulletins, English translations
of 5.0 million Japanese patent abstracts and 3.0 million European
patent abstracts, and 9.3 million foreign patent abstracts from the
Derwent collection of patent documents. Additionally, examiners have
desktop access to over 300,000 articles from scientific and technical
journals published by Elsevier in the areas of chemistry, medicine, and
biotechnology.
Patent examiners can also search millions of pages of all U.S. and
foreign patent images. These image and text databases continue to grow
as approximately 3,000 newly granted U.S. patents are added to the
system on a weekly basis, and other documents are added as we receive
them. With the deployment of the initial desktop capability, patent
image search system use increased 48 percent in the first 6 months.
Most importantly, the availability from the examiner's desktop
workstation of this vast amount of patent documentation and other
technical information has improved the quality of the examiner's
search. The ``Patent 1998 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report''
indicated that PTO's customers showed an 11 percent increase in
satisfaction with how examiners ``conduct a thorough search during the
patent examination process,'' up from their opinion in 1996.
Managing this tremendous growth has resulted in numerous
challenges. Many of our current or past search tools have served the
PTO well during their tenure. However, as the limits of technology
continue to advance, new tools become available which provide an even
greater access to information. For example, when the shared
workstations were first used the number of examiners using the system
were approximately 2,000. Today, the number of examiners using the
desktop systems has grown to over 3,800, and their expectations
concerning system capabilities have increased as technology has spread
throughout our culture.
With the transition to a modem text search product, additional
features requested by the examiners--not available from the previous
search engine--are being deployed to assist the examiners search a
broader universe of prior art. Some of the features requested for the
new product are: query by example; relevance ranking of returned
answers; British-American equivalent term substitutions; multiple on-
line thesauri; automatically search abbreviations and the fall word(s)
abbreviated; support for many more concurrent users; plus better system
support for adding and indexing, and retrieving multiple information
sources from a single search statement.
As the ranks of the Patent Business have grown, system
infrastructures must be able to provide the necessary level of support
and service required for the burgeoning population of patent examiners.
Further, since many of our early development efforts were customized
for the PTO and are not year 2000 compliant, maintenance of these
systems has been costly and would be even more costly to upgrade.
Inevitably, comparisons will be made between today's tools which
examiners have grown accustomed to, and future tools which examiners
may be reluctant to accept. However, to address these challenges, the
PTO has and must continue to deploy new systems.
To mitigate the impacts of these changes, we have enlisted the
support and considered the recommendations of numerous users in
developing our new search tools. Through mechanisms such as examiner
focus sessions, roundtable discussions, and an automated suggestion
box, system developers have been provided valuable information on user
preferences and requirements which have been integrated whenever
possible. In addition, patent examiners participated in the ``hands-
on'' evaluation of four text search software products and recommended
to PTO's Chief Information Officer which software product best fit
their needs. Through all of this, we are committed not only to
fulfilling our legal obligations with respect to the unions, but also
to strive to work together in the spirit of partnership.