[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 9927]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. HOWARD COBLE

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 5, 2001

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill to authorize the 
operations of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for Fiscal 
Year 2002.
  Patents, and intellectual property in general, have been part of 
American jurisprudence and our national economy since the founding of 
the Republic. George Washington signed a patent bill early in his first 
term as President, and Abraham Lincoln (himself a patent owner) was 
quoted as saying that the patent system ``added the fuel of interest to 
the fire of genius.'' But for the most part, this subject matter--dry 
and arcane, the province of engineers armed with law degrees--has never 
inspired great interest for the public. In fact, I am hard-pressed to 
identify two words which are better suited to induce sleep in the 
average lay person than ``patent law.''
  My good-natured jab at patent lawyers notwithstanding, Lincoln got it 
right, as he so often did. The Founding Fathers were prescient enough 
to understand that for the young nation to survive, its economy had to 
flourish. This is why our Constitution (Article I, section 8) actually 
includes provisions authorizing Congress to protect patent owners and 
their rights. More than 200 hundred years and six-million patents 
later, the economy and the country are the better for it. Our patent 
laws have enabled individuals and businesses to produce marvelous 
inventions that touch us in ways which we take for granted but which 
enhance the quality of our lives on a daily basis. For that matter, 
patents are the very life's blood of certain industries, as any biotech 
executive will acknowledge. Try raising a half-billion dollars in 
capital to bring a cancer treatment to market without patent protection 
for the underlying work.
  Unfortunately, the PTO is not currently providing adequate service to 
individuals and businesses. Innovators must obtain prompt and 
reasonable evaluations from the PTO on whether they can acquire patents 
if they are to make sound business decisions. The PTO is now taking 
more than 25 months from filing to process a patent application to a 
patent, and the latest projections show it will take an average of 38.6 
months by 2006. I am fearful that the agency simply does not have the 
resources that will allow it to provide quality patents, especially in 
such emerging areas as biotechnology and business methods. On top of 
these problems, the PTO has been unable to adopt the latest information 
technology that could allow it to provide better service to the public 
and more efficient patent and trademark processing.
  If one accepts my point--that patents are vital to the sustenance of 
our economy--then I hope another point begins to resonate more 
forcefully among my colleagues. Since 1992, the U.S. Congress, with the 
participation of each Administration, has steadily diverted money out 
of the PTO to other programs. This practice imposes an unfair tax on 
inventors, because unlike most federal programs, the PTO does not 
receive stipend from the General Treasury. Instead, it raises all of 
the revenue needed to operate through the collection of user fees 
imposed on inventors who file for patent protection and businesses that 
file for trademark registration at the agency. In addition, the
  The bottom line is that time is money in the patent world; and with 
more money, the PTO can issue quality patents faster, which means more 
investment, more jobs, and greater wealth for American industry. The 
same is true for trademarks. When businesses develop new products or 
new brand names for existing products, early federal registration of 
the name, logo, or symbol is necessary to protect rights and avoid 
expensive litigation.
  My bill would help to correct this problem by authorizing the agency 
to keep all of the fee revenue it raises in Fiscal Year 2002. At the 
same time, however, this authorization would still be subject to the 
availability of appropriations, meaning that the PTO must still 
convince the appropriators that the agency needs and will properly 
spend any extra funds. In addition, and consistent with this emphasis 
on oversight, the legislation sets forth two problem areas that PTO 
should address in the coming year, irrespective of its overall budget: 
First, the PTO Director is required to develop an electronic system for 
the filing and processing of all patent and trademark applications that 
is user friendly and that will allow the Office to process and maintain 
electronically the contents and history of all applications. Fifty-
million dollars are earmarked for this project in each of Fiscal Years 
2002 and 2003 for this purpose. Second, the Director, in consultation 
with the Patent and Trademark Public Advisory Committees, must develop 
a strategic plan that sets forth the goals and methods by which PTO 
will enhance patent and trademark quality, reduce pendency, and develop 
a 21st Century electronic system for the benefit of filers, examiners, 
and the general public.
  Mr. Speaker, the Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 
2002 will allow the patent and trademark communities to get more bang 
for their filing and maintenance buck, while enhancing the likelihood 
that the agency will receive greater appropriations in the upcoming 
Fiscal Year. It is a bill that benefits the PTO, its users, and the 
American economy. I urge my colleagues to support it.

                          ____________________