STATEMENT OF RALPH BLAKESLEE, PATENT OFFICE SOCIETY

Mr. BLAKESLEE. Thank you very much, sir.

The Patent Office Society only heard about these hearings yesterday, and we have not been able to get the consensus of our membership. We were somewhat gratified to learn that your executive session would be put off. What I would ask this committee to do is to allow me to give my personal views. I have worked with the building problem as immediate past chairman of the legislative committee of the Patent Office Society, and I will submit for the record subsequently a consensus of the membership of the society, which includes virtually all of the examiners in the Office. It is the professional society of the examiners.

Senator YOUNG. We shall gladly hear your oral testimony, and whatever statement you wish to file with the committee will be submitted with the record.

Mr. BLAKESLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator YOUNG. You should not delay or be guilty of any undue delay in submitting that.

Mr. BLAKESLEE. We will get that in right away and we will ask your indulgence in delaying the presentation.

(The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Blakeslee is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE PATENT OFFICE SOCIETY WITH REGARD TO PROJECT NO. 49,926

Pursuant to the request of Senator Young, chairman, Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, the following statement on behalf of the Patent Office Society relative to the proposed construction of a new building to house the Patent Office within Howard or Anne Arundel Counties in the vicinity of the city of Baltimore, Md., under the GSA prospectus for project No. 49,926 is respectfully submitted.

The active membership of the Patent Office Society comprises approximately 970 professional employees of the Patent Office and represents a vast majority of the 1,020 such employees eligible for membership. At a crash meeting on March 21, 1963, attended by approximately 800 members, the prospectus aforesaid and some of its implication were briefly considered and discussed by the membership. A general impression has been created that if a new Patent Office building were to be erected under the proposed prospectus that such building would be located in the Annapolis area which appears to be somewhat at variance with the expressed location in the prospectus; namely in the vicinity of the city of Baltimore. The membership of the Patent Office Society is in full accord with the proposition that the operation of the Patent Office is being impaired due to inadequate quarters, and it is imperative that adequate facilities be provided in the near future if the intended constitutional function of the Patent Office is to prevail.

Notwithstanding the fact that the north wing of the Commerce Building was designed specifically for occupancy by the Patent Office, the society has been advised that adequate quarters may not be provided in the present building or in Downtown Washington or the environs thereof within the foreseeable future. On this assumption, the Patent Office Society on February 6, 1962, approved erection of a new building on Government-owned land at Langley, Va., as an acceptable alternative.

At the meeting on March 21, 1963, aforesaid the following four questions were propounded to the membership with the results indicated:

1. Do you believe that the need for a new Patent Office Building is sufficiently great that it would be acceptable to construct the building within commuting distance (approximately 30 minutes' travel time) of Washington, but outside the District of Columbia? Overwhelmingly yes.

2. Would Langley, Va., previously endorsed by the Patent Office Society, be an acceptable site? Overwhelmingly yes.

3. Would the Howard-Anne Arundel area as recommended in the prospectus to Congress by GSA be acceptable? Yes 485; no 285.

4. If both Langley and the Howard-Anne Arundel areas are acceptable, which of the two do you prefer? Langley preferred, 354; Howard-Anne Arundel preferred, 245.

As stated above, this expression of opinion resulted from a crash meeting of the membership. However, the society submits that the full impact on the operation of the Patent Office due to this contemplated move can best be determined by submission of a more searching questionnaire to the membership and to the nonprofessional staff of the Patent Office.

Respectfully submitted.

March 26, 1963.

Senator YOUNG. You may continue.

PATENT OFFICE SOCIETY, By EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

Mr. BLAKESLEE. First of all I would like simply to thank the American Patent Law Association for recognizing our dire need in the Patent Office. Patent attorneys come in and talk to examiners every day concerning their cases. They know the straits we are living in. We, in turn, know, since it involves us, too, the personal inconvenience which will be involved in moving the office, which they have chosen to put up with in order to meet this dire need.

The conditions in the Patent Office are nothing short of deplorable for professional people. There are three or four professional people in a single room, attempting to concentrate, for example, on work such as mine the analysis of a disclosure of the space satellite with its control system-when there are other examiners in there, any one of whom, or all of whom, may have to conduct an interview while I am attempting to concentrate.

All of our files are there. These files, of necessity, are searched by the public as well as ourselves, since we maintain unofficial files which are also highly useful to attorneys. They are timesaving, these unofficial art breakdowns, and are used all the time.

Other examiners throughout the Office must use our files to look for inventions which are analogous to those found in their arts. So, consequently, we have a constant stream of people in and out of our

area.

It makes it crowded, but we can't do anything else; people just have to come in and out. As I say, trying to concentrate on a highly technical or legal problem is very difficult to do and do the job very well. One of the most striking demonstrations of the comparison between conditions where you have no disturbance and conditions under normal daily work routine, comes about on Saturday mornings. I sometimes work on Saturdays when attorneys do not come in, and other examiners are not so numerous around me. I find that it has been beneficial to my work to delay the consideration of the most trying cases until Saturday morning, because I can get so much more done on them. I feel personally this way about the location. I live in north Arlington, close in, and I am not going to have ready access to the circumferential. If I were to commute, I would have to go through town every day. It would be a long haul, but if we can get this building now that we need so badly, I consider it my duty as a public servant to recommend that the people build this building in their own interests, so I can do my job. I simply have to say this. For me, this will involve getting rid of my house and moving. That is all I can do. I don't like it, but I believe the building must be built as soon as possible. That is all I have to say personally. Again, I promise you the official word of the whole society.

Senator YOUNG. Yes. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions?

(No response.)

Senator YOUNG. If not, we will now hear from State Senator Charles R. Fenwick of Virginia.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES R. FENWICK, STATE SENATOR, 22D SENATORIAL DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ARLINGTON, VA.

Senator FENWICK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: At the outset I want to support completely the need for a new Patent Office facility. The conditions which Commissioner Ladd has indicated to you exist, and, unless we are able to do something about the situation, one of the greatest contributions to industry is going to be materially deteriorated and set back.

I might point out to the gentlemen of the committee that the grant of a patent is not a monopoly. It is a grant of something that did not exist before, and the exclusive right to make use of and sell the device granted by the patent is an award or an incentive for creating something that did not exist before.

This new building is proposed to be geared into industry, and electronic devices will be used so that this information can be made available to industry very rapidly. I think it is one of the most essential and the greatest needs we have, we believe, to get this type of construction.

On the other hand, I want to call to the committee's attention the fact that it is essential that as little impact be made on the personnel of the Patent Office as is possible, and to a lesser degree for those who are located here practicing before the Patent Office.

As the Commissioner pointed out, those people employed in the Patent Office are scientists, engineers, lawyers, and skilled people who are very difficult to obtain, and very expensive to train. The greater impact on them by moving the Patent Office a greater distance is going to be an inducement and an encouragement for them to leave and seek private employment.

Your chairman at the outset asked a very pertinent question: "Why move the Patent Office 40 miles away from here, unless it is absolutely essential to do so!" Obviously, the farther you get away from Washington, the greater the impact is on the employees and on those who are serving and practicing before the Patent Office. This question is particularly pertinent when some 400 acres of land adjacent to the CIA is owned by the Department of Commerce, of which the Patent Office, of course, is a division or a branch. This is about 7 miles from downtown Washington and adjacent to the new Cabin John Bridge. It is accessible from downtown Washington in on an average of about 15 minutes. It is quite close to the new Circumferential Highway and the Dulles Airport.

It should be borne in mind that the use of the Langley site will cost the Government nothing for additional land, and will take no land off the tax rolls of Fairfax County, and is by far the most convenient location mentioned.

Some question has been raised concerning the location of the Patent Office at Langley being in conflict with the Year 2000 Plan. This is

contrary to the facts. Beginning on page 34, and ending on page 47, there are five possible plans submitted. On each the CIA site is shown by a black dot as a subcenter. The recommended plan is on pages 46 and 47, where once again the CIA site is shown as a subcenter.

It is neecssary to read the text to get a definition of subcenter. The reading of the text defines subcenter as a smaller new city and a center of population, commercial activity, and employment.

The placing of the Patent Office adjacent to the CIA would simply add population, and in no sense do violence to the Year 2000 Plan. The location of the Patent Office on the Langley site has the overwhelming approval of the employees of the Patent Office. I say that because such a survey was made prior to this present suggestion as to a new site, and these are the quotations from the Patent Office itself. What it will be toward a new site, you just heard the statement on. A survey shows that as applied to the present personnel in the Patent Office, driving time to the proposed new Langley site would be 7 minutes less on the average than it is to the present building.

The Patent Office checked the location of all these people, and checked their time, and this was their conclusion. It would drop from 39 minutes to 32 minutes. The average driving time for attorneys practicing before the Patent Office, who reside in the Washington area, shows 26 minutes from their residences to the new site. There are currently 17 buses scheduled each day to Langley, which undoubtedly would increase with the demand.

It must be remembered that even if the money is appropriated by the present Congress, it would be 4 or 5 years before the building would be completed. So we are not talking about conditions as they exist today, but what they may be in the next 4 or 5 years.

The opening of the Cabin John Bridge—and if any of you have not been up in that area and want to take a very pleasant drive, just go over the Memorial Bridge and drive up the George Washington Memorial Parkway to the Cabin John Bridge, and you will see an amazing sight, with a network of roads, and you will see what it has done. It is immediately adjacent to this 400-acre tract owned by the Bureau of Public Roads, which is under the Commerce Department. Surely it was intended that this 400 acres was going to be used by the Government without having to go out here and find another site at an expense to somebody. At least it will be taken off the tax rolls even if it is given to the Government. We cannot visualize that when this land is available.

I would urge each member of the committee, if they are sufficiently interested in it, simply to take a little trip and go up there and look this site over.

The opening of the Cabin John Bridge and the extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway on the Virginia side of the river, which has just been done, will materialy improve traffic circulation. Fully as significant, however, is the extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway up the Maryland side of the river to the Capital Beltway. This is under construction and will mean that people from Northwest Washington can get on the Maryland side of the parkway and cross over Cabin John Bridge to the Patent Office without using the existing bridges, or adding to the congestion of Chain Bridge. The opening of the McLean bypass has materially

alleviated traffic congestion in that area. Even greater relief is in prospect when Route 66 is completed, so that people in the McLean area and elsewhere can use the beltway without going into McLean and Langley.

The opening of the Roosevelt Bridge will permit the George Washington Memorial Parkway traffic to flow into Washington at a much greater rate than is now the case. I am sure that members of the committee are familiar with the new beltway which is being constructed from Woodrow Wilson Bridge just below Alexandria, which swings on around the Cabin John Bridge, and the fact that the Dulles Airport access road, which is now a limited-access highway for four lanes, will merge with Route 66, which will be made eight lanes instead of four, which will permit the traffic to come in and flow in through Route 66, and will go down to Rosslyn over the new Roosevelt Bridge or the Three Sisters Bridge, when that is constructed.

The point I am making is that in the next 4 or 5 years you are going to have a tremendous trend of traffic away from that particular area, from people who are in that area, through other media, and the fact that the Cabin John Bridge has been opened will permit these people to come into that area without a great deal of transference.

The Governor has stated that if the Patent Office is located at Langley, he will recommend top priority for the widening of Route 123 from Chain Bridge to the parkway, to four lanes.

The New Patent Office Building must be especially designed for computers and electronic equipment, and will require approximately 2 million square feet and parking space for 2,400 automobiles. The Government-owned land at Langley is adeqaute in every way for such a building and required parking.

It is highly desirable that there be as little impact as possible on present personnel in the Patent Office, and those practicing before it. Personnel of the Patent Office, who are mostly engineers, scientists, and lawyers, if lost to the Patent Office because of a major move, would cripple this most important branch of Government. Moving the Patent Office a substantial distance away could very easily cause these highly skilled people to leave the Government, and would also seriously disrupt the livelihood of many attorneys specializing in patent

law.

I might say, and I failed to say it at the opening of my statement, that my name is Charles R. Fenwick. I am a member of the law firm specializing in law of Mason, Fenwick & Lawrence a senior part

ner.

In order to lessen this impact, the Legislature of Virginia in its 1962 session authorized those who were qualified to practice before the Patent Office to continue such practice should the Patent Office be moved to Virginia. This presents a very serious problem if the Patent Office is moved to one of the other States; that is, the question as to whether or not they will be permitted to practice. We anticipated this in the 1962 session of the General Assembly and passed a bill, which I will file with the committee, authorizing those people who are now permitted to practice before the Patent Office, to continue to do so in the State of Virginia, should the Patent Office be moved there. So that there will be no impact from that standpoint at all.