The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Robbins.

The next witness is Mr. R. D. Blakeslee, chairman, Legislative Committee, Patent Office Society.

Mr. Blakeslee.

STATEMENT OF R. D. BLAKESLEE, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, PATENT OFFICE SOCIETY

Mr. BLAKESLEE. Mr. Chairman, may we put our statement in the record and refer briefly to it to save time?

The CHAIRMAN. You may do so. serted in the record at this point. (The statement follows:)

Your full statement will be in

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the membership of the Patent Office Society includes engineers, scientists, lawyers, and executives, both within and outside of Government. It is an organization devoted to the safeguarding and improvement of the patent system, which of course includes the Patent Office.

In previous appearances before this committee, and in its journal, the Patent Office Society has presented statistics on turnover in the Patent Office which showed that by far most of the young men who became patent examiner trainees left the office before serving 5 years. It was further shown that even examiners with many years of experience were leaving. What is the situation today?

The bar graph on the next page shows that, of 1,142 college graduates recruited between 1955 and 1959, only 379 remained in September 1961. The 763 who left represent a tremendous waste in terms of supervisory time and other Government resources invested in training these men.

1 "How Low Federal Salaries Are Hurting Government." The graph on p. 655 shows that on Apr. 1, 1957, only 30 examiners remained out of 145 recruited in the years 1952, 1953, and 1954. (See pp. 643-666.)

2 Ibid., p. 653, "Sure, I know I am giving up increasingly valuable future retirement rights. But through social security and private plans, I'll get equal benefits. Meanwhile, even with my Government annuity reduced because of early retirement, working during regular working hours outside is raising my total income to over $5,000 more than my salary in the Office. Could I send my girls to college on money that I wouldn't get for 10 years, maybe when I am too old and feeble to enjoy anything that is left over? This way, I'm paying my bills as they come."

Furthermore, we are still losing some of our most able senior examiners. During fiscal 1961, the Patent Office lost 15 experienced examiners from grades GS-13, 14, and 15. These are at salary levels that, supposedly, reward an employee for demonstrated professional competence. Of these 15, one rated as "excellent" transferred to another Government agency, while 7 rated as "excellent" went into private practice, and one rated as "outstanding" did likewise. Why are these people leaving?

Patent examiners generally regard the shortcomings of the Office to be as follows: First, lack of professional atmosphere and opportunity to advance: second, depressing physical surroundings; and third, inadequate salary and salary prospects. These are, in general, valid complaints; accordingly the Patent Office is taking bold, forward-looking steps to remedy the first complaint. and the second is being remedied as far as possible within the inherent physical

J56

(The graph referred to follows:)

Number remaining of those recruited during the

OT

T76T

FISCAL YEAR OF ENTRY ON DUTY

limitations of the present Patent Office quarters. As to the third complaint: the Office is powerless to remedy the salary shortcomings without new legislation. The following graph shows that after about 4 years of service in the Office at which time the average trainee approaches professional self-reliance and is about to enter his period of maximum usefulness to the Office-the young examiner is induced to recover his investment in a legal education by accepting an outside position paying a thousand dollars a year or so more than his Government salary. At that time also, the financial demands of a growing family often force a decision to be made. Moreover, he sees that, upon attainment of full professional competence, he would make almost twice as much in private practice. The result is that many of the men who are confident of their potential have been leaving the Office, with all of the implications that this fact brings to mind. This also helps to explain why some of our senior examiners are leaving in spite of their stake in pension and seniority rights.

(The graph referred to above follows:)

The manpower loss in the Patent Office is now becoming critical. The graph on page 639 shows this clearly. As noted before, of the 1,142 examiners recruited between 1955 and 1959, only 379 remained on September 30, 1961. Men from this group continue to leave, now, today, and before long the Patent Office will have lost most of the best men recruited in the "big" recruitment years of 1956–61.

This loss is particularly grievous because the trend of the chart shows that the Office can expect to retain only about 200 examiners with more than 10 years' experience on its staff in 1965. The total supervisory force needed is about 230. Even assuming that everyone of the remaining examiners with 10 years' or more experience is qualified to supervise, 30 positions will have to be filled by men who entered the Office after 1955. But almost all of our very best potential supervisors will have seen the salary differential, and left. Unless the trend is reversed, the Office may be forced to promote "second best" people to its supervisory positions. How can we keep our future trainees when they must be supervised by men who do not measure up to the men who leave? How long can the patent system remain sound and retain public confidence if the patent grant, which is the heart of the system, is conferred by less than the best people available?

The Patent Office Society feels that the facts presented compel the society to urge that the general schedule be adjusted upwardly in the middle and upper grades, in order to make the pay of Government patent professionals and executives reasonably comparable to pay in private practice.

The average private salary line on the preceding graph was plotted from the responses of 17 corporations and 45 law firms to a questionnaire sent to 114 corporations and law firms. Each was asked to quote the salary paid to its patent professionals in each of the work situations defined in the margin of the graph opposite the GS grade of a Government patent professional doing approximately corresponding work. The law firms reporting varied in size of staff from 2 to over 50, while corporations reporting varied in staff size from 3 to over 100.

The Government salary line represents what an employee entering each of the various grades is now paid in the Patent Office.

(The booklet entitled "How Low Federal Salaries Are Hurting Government" follows:)