American Bell Tel Co. v. Dolbear
Decision Date | 24 January 1883 |
Citation | 15 F. 448 |
Parties | AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE CO. v. DOLBEAR and others. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Chauncey Smith and James J. Storrow, for complainants.
Causten Browne and James E. Maynadier, for defendants.
Few legal rules have been oftener misunderstood and misapplied than the maxim that you cannot patent a principle. But the confusion on this subject has been so effectually cleared up by the recent judgment of the supreme court, delivered by Mr Justice BRADLEY, in Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S 707, that it will be sufficient for the purposes of this case to state the conclusions there announced. There can be no patent for a mere principle. The discoverer of a natural force or a scientific fact cannot have a patent for that. But if he invents for the first time a process by which a certain effect of one of the forces of nature is made useful to mankind, and fully describes and claims that process, and also describes a mode or apparatus by which it may be usefully applied, he is, within the meaning and the very words of the patent law, 'a person who has invented or discovered any new and useful art;' and he is entitled to a patent for the process of which he is the first inventor and is not restricted to that particular form of mechanism or apparatus by which he carries out that process. Another person, who afterwards invents an improved form of apparatus embodying the same process, may indeed obtain a patent for his improvement, but he has no right to use process, in his own or any other form of apparatus, without the consent of the first inventor of the process.
It was decided by this court in American Bell Telephone Co. v. Spencer, 8 F. 509, and is not denied by the present defendant, that Bell is the first inventor of a speaking telephone. The only controversy is the extent of his patent. The draughtsman of the specifications has exhibited as clear and accurate a comprehension of the rules of the patent law, as the inventor has of the force of nature with which he was dealing, and of the means by which he reduced that force to a practical use. The patent is clearly not intended to be limited to a form of apparatus, but embraces a method or process. This is apparent upon the face of the specification. The inventor begins by saying:
'My present invention consists in the employment of a vibratory or undulatory current of electricity in contradistinction to a merely intermittent or pulsatory current, and of a method of and apparatus for producing electrical undulations upon the line wire.'
After describing the advantages of an undulatory current, resulting from gradual changes of intensity, over a pulsatory current caused by sudden changes of intensity, he says:
Or, as he afterwards repeats in fuller language:
'Electrical undulations, induced by the vibration of a body capable of inductive action, can be represented graphically, without error, by the same sinusoidal curve which expresses the vibration of the inducing body itself, and the effect of its vibration upon the air; or, as above stated, the rate of oscillation in the electrical current corresponds to the rate of vibration of the inducing body, that is, to the pitch of sound produced; the intensity of the current varies with the amplitude of the vibration, that is, with the loudness of the sound; and the polarity of the current corresponds to the direction of vibrating body, that is, to the condensations and rarefactions of air produced by the vibration.'
He further says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. American Bell Tel. Co.
...specifications. But the specifications have been sustained as covering the telephone. Telephone Interferences, 15 O.G. 776; Telephone Co. v. Dolbear, 15 F. 448; Same National Imp. Tel. Co., 27 F. 663. There is no allegation of willful intent to defraud, nor any allegation of concealment, no......
- The 'Iolanthe Case'
-
American Bell Telephone Co. v. People's Telephone Co.
...... abstract right of sending sounds by telegraph without regard. to means, but all means and processes described which are. essential to the application of the principle. American. Bell Telephone Co. v. Spencer, 8 F. 509; Same v. Dolbear, 15 F. 448. . . In view. of the conclusion reached upon the merits of the issue, it is. not material whether Bell's inceptive invention did or. did not antedate the time of filing his application for the. first patent. That application was filed February 14, 1876. It describes ......
-
American Bell Telephone Co. v. Globe Telephone Co.
...... should receive the broadest interpretation to secure to the. inventor, not the abstract right of sending sounds by. telegraph without regard to means, but all means and. processes described which are essential to the application of. the principle. American Bell Telephone Co. v. Dolbear, 15 F. 448; Same v. Spencer, 8 Fed.Rep. 509. This court, in American Bell Telephone Co. v. Molecular. Telephone Co., followed the construction thus placed upon the. claim. 23 Blatchf. 253, 32 F. 214. . . The. proofs for the complainant show that the apparatus, which it. is alleged ......