Victor Talking Machine Co. v. American Graphophone Co.
Decision Date | 27 March 1911 |
Citation | 189 F. 359 |
Parties | VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO. v. AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Horace Pettit, for complainant.
Philip Mauro, Reeve Lewis, and C. A. L. Massie (Ralph L. Scott, of counsel), for defendant.
The patent in suit, 'record for talking machines,' was granted to Eldridge R. Johnson, assignor to Victor Machine Company, August 11, 1908, on divisional application filed November 12, 1904, original application filed August 16 1898. While the complainant alleges in a general way that substantially all the claims are infringed, it points out and specifically alleges infringement of claims 2, 3, 4, 8, 14 and 23. These claims read as follows:
* * *
The specifications of the patent in suit say:
Mr. R. M. Hunter, complainant's expert, says:
'(8) I understand that the broad invention comprehended by the patentee is embodied in the method of producing a laterally undulating record of constant depth when the groove is formed by cutting out and removing the material, and in which the side walls of the groove are clearly defined and smooth surfaces produced by the cutting or engraving action of the stylus during the formation of the cut-out groove, whereas in the preferred form of the invention the side walls of the groove 'diverge from the bottom of the same to the surface of the record.'
In what is called the parent patent, patent to Eldridge R. Johnson, assignor to Victor Talking Machine Company, No. 778,975, dated January 3, 1905, application filed August 16, 1898, the claim made was for 'cutting-tool for sound-recording machines.' Johnson tells how to make or form a cut-out record. He says, after telling how to cut out and form a record:
'It is understood that in reproducing the record thus formed may be used for reproducing purposes directly, or a more durable and indestructable record may be reproduced by various processes from the original record.
That is duplicates might be made by various processes.) This feature, however, forms no part of my present invention herein described.'
Earlier in the specifications of such parent patent, No. 778,975, he said:
'The object of my present invention is to provide a cutting tool for cutting grooves in wax or other suitable material for recording sound waves of the construction above referred to, my aim being to provide a tool of microscopic proportions peculiarly formed with a flat face of substantially oval form, the edges of the oval being cutting edges to cleanly cut the material from the resultant groove, leaving sharp, smooth, well-defined edges, the flat face being preferably obliquely disposed to the axial line of the tool, so that when in position in operation to present a cutting-face substantially perpendicular.
'It is clear that my invention may also be applicable to other constructions of recording machines than that hereinbefore more particularly referred to.'
Having said this, Johnson then described the tool for doing the work, how to use it, the method of doing the work, and the result. It is seen, however, that the record and method claims were not filed until November 12, 1904, six years after the filing of the 'parent patent.' I do not think there was an abuse of discretion in the Patent Office in allowing a division of the application in this case. In Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U.S. 543, 24 Sup.Ct. 416, 48 L.Ed. 555, the court, speaking of the division of applications, said:
'Without that rule (rule 41 held to be a hard and fast rule), the action of the Patent Office can be accommodated to the character of inventions and discretion can be exercised, and when exercised, we may say in passing, except in cases of clear abuse, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
MacFadden v. Jenkins
... ... statutes form a departure from the American common law on the ... subject prevailing in most states, ... v. H ... H. M. Safe Co., 146 F. 37; Victor & Co. v. Am ... Graphophone Co., 189 F. 359; United ... ...
-
Boeckeler Lumber Co. v. Wahlbrink
...Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. Arrot, 135 F. 750 (affirming 131 F. 457); Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. American Graphophone Co., 190 F. 1023 (affirming 189 F. 359); Brant Coal Co., 93 U. S. Sup. 335; 1 Story Equity, 391; Hequemborg v. Edwards, 155 Mo. 514. A waiver is where one in possession of any rig......
-
Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Starr Piano Co.
... ... The ... validity of the patent was questioned in Victor Talking ... Machine Co. v. American Graphophone Co. (C.C.) 189 F ... 359. There Judge Ray, sitting in the District ... ...
-
American Graphophone Co. v. Emerson Phonograph Co.
... ... litigation, and was adjudged valid in American ... Graphophone Co. v. Universal Talking Machine Mfg. Co., and ... Same v. American Record Co., 151 F. 595, 81 C.C.A. 139 ... (January 14, ... fully covered the Jones invention; and (2) that a decree in a ... suit between the Victor Company, as plaintiff, and the ... American Graphophone Company, as defendant (the plaintiff ... ...