Hazeltine Corporation v. Coe, 6576.

• Decision Date: 07 December 1936
• Docket Number: No. 6576.,6576.
• Citation: Hazeltine Corporation v. Coe, 87 F.2d 558, 66 App.D.C. 341 (D.C. Cir. 1936)
• Parties: HAZELTINE CORPORATION et al. v. COE, Commissioner of Patents.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

66 App. DC 341, 87 F.2d 558 (1936)

HAZELTINE CORPORATION et al. v.COE, Commissioner of Patents.

No. 6576.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Decided December 7, 1936.

Rehearing Denied December 16, 1936.

Clarence M. Fisher, of Washington, D. C., and Laurence B. Dodds, of New York City, for appellants.

R. F. Whitehead, Solicitor of Patent Office, and Harry S. Mackey, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, C. J., and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, GRONER, and STEPHENS, JJ.

ROBB, J.

Appeal by Hazeltine Corporation and Harold A. Wheeler from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District(now District Court of the United States) dismissing their bill brought under the provisions of section 4915, R.S., as amended (35 U.S.C.A. § 63), to authorize the issuance of a patent on an application by appellant Wheeler.

The application relates to radio receivers having an automatic volume control, with a visual indicator to show when the set is tuned to true resonance with the incoming carrier current.

We agree with the tribunals of the Patent Office that it is unnecessary to describe the particular details of the structures disclosed, as the decisions of the Patent Office tribunals and the decree of the court below are based upon the ground that the system defined by the claims does not amount to patentable invention over the disclosures of certain patents.In other words, it is not contended that appellant Wheeler did not evolve the system he claims to have evolved; the contention being that the claims are unpatentable over the Friis patent (1,675,848), in view of the Perry patent (1,536,130), and that no invention would be involved in applying to the constant volume radio receiver, as shown in the Friis patent, a visual indicator to indicate resonance, as shown in the Perry patent.

Claims 68, 69, and 72 to 77, inclusive, are involved.The parties agree that claims 69 and 74 are sufficiently illustrative, and we reproduce them in the margin.¹

The evidence in the court below discloses that important characteristics of a radio receiver are sensitivity, "by which the receiver is capable of reaching out and pulling in the distant stations"; selectivity, whereby the receiver is capable of receiving the desired signal and rejecting undesired signals; fidelity, the ability of the receiver to reproduce accurately the tone quality of the program being received; and, last, but not least, simplicity of control — which enables the user to obtain satisfactory reception by a minimum number of adjustments.

At the time of the filing of the Wheeler application (July 7, 1927), radio receivers were quite satisfactory with respect to sensitivity and selectivity, but were not so satisfactory with respect to simplicity of control or adjustment.This was due to the fact that there were a multitude of broadcasting stations, some weak, some strong, some local, and some distant.As a result, with an adjustment of the volume control of the receiver to a point sufficiently high to receive the weakest signals within the sensitivity limit of the receiver, operation of the tuning dial over its range would result in a deafening volume from the strongest of the stations — termed in the art, "blasting."To avoid this, the user could continually adjust the volume control while tuning to a desired station.It was to overcome this annoying necessity that Wheeler devised the system set forth in the claims.The result was highly satisfactory.Although there had been a demand for that type of system, including an automatic amplification control and a tuning indicator, none was previously known to radio engineers which it was possible to adapt to radio receivers.As the witness Langley testified, "it was the first indication that I had had, as an executive engineer in the industry, that there was any method of producing the type of receiver we are here talking about, that was at all feasible commercially."Mr. Langley is a consulting engineer of wide practical experience, including service as engineer in charge of receiver design for the General Electric Company, with a staff of 30 radio engineers, and director of engineering for the Crosley Radio Company, with a staff of 60 radio engineers.He had for two years made a continuous and detailed study of the art of automatic amplification control.

Mr. Langley further testified, with respect to the system under consideration, "that it is now...