Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1878-11-29

be to so make the rCed.DOafd That the Three
or the four sets of reeds in il shall be acted
upon instantly and simultaneously by III,
rush of air upon the opening of the valve
and it is set forth that that result is effected
by placing two sets of reeds on the same hor
izontal plane, and placing the other sets on al
inclined plane, each with its base on the same
level as the first and second sets, thus max
ing the head of each reed equi-distant from
the valve and making each produce instanta.
neous concerted sound Although this fea.
ture thus existed before in reed boards having
three or more full sets Of reeds, il did not exist
before in aroed- board arranged like that in the
plaintiffs patent of 1862 having three sets OF
reeds in a reed-board no larger than that
heretofore used for two full sets aud al
though an additional partial set of reeds may
have before been added 10 the two sets, COM
mencing at tenor aud running upward
through the scale, such additional partial set
did not have the vibrating ends of its reeds
resting on the same base with the vibrating
ends of the reeds in the other two sets. One
feature of the arrangement claimed in the
first claim may have before existed in one
structure, and the other feature may have be-
fore existed in another structure, but they
did not before coexist in any one structure ;
and it involved invention for the plaintiff to
combine and arrange them in his reed board.
The plaintiff was called as Il witness on be-
half Of the defendants, and, on his direct ex.
animation was asked "237. State, if you
please, what devices or improvements in the
reed organ you supposed you invented, and
what you believe to be described and claimed
in your letters patent marked, Exhibit A -
He answered "A. In the old tri-reed or or
CANS with three full sets of reeds, there were
many objections, and, in. consequence of
these objections it never became desirable
or popular instrument with organ buyers
Those objections were some of them, too
long a valve required, too much power to Sc
cure the valve sufficiently to hinder the cs-
cape of wind through the valve seat or OPEN
ing, and, consequently to overcome this, ex-
ira power on the long valve 10y a touch Of the
key with the finger; also, socket board
made with the long valve was more liable to
spring, so that the valve seat would become
crooked, and render il useless, on account of
leaking air in consequence; BESIDES the in
strument required to be a little longer on ac-
count of q larger bellows being necessary to
supply sufficient air for the reeds besides
the tone not being good or desirable one in
the trLreed board. 10 overcome these OBJ
jections, and perhaps, others 1 might men
ton, l conceived the idea of devising an in
strument in a more desirable and practical
FORM in which | could embody everything
desirable in the old tri-reed, and introduce
features that were popular and desirable. |
therefore, conceived the idea of taking the
double reed-board and introducing a set of
reeds in a space unoccupied between the two
reeds of that board on the treble end, and in
troduce third set of reeds without altering
the two-reed or double-board, and thereby
secure just rs practical and desirable an ac-
ton as the ordinary double reed-board, and
be enabled to produce the best effects of n
third set of reeds, rs far down in the scale as
desirable to accomplish this result and this,
in the main, is what claim rs nv improve
ment, as set forth in letters patent, Exhibit
A." One of the desirable features in the tri-
reed board, as set forth in the plaintiffs pat
ent of 1866, and feaauro which assisted in
giving the best effect to third set OF reeds
was the feature of bringing down the vibrat-
ing ends of the reeds in the third set to the
same base with the other two sets This fea-
ture is fully set forth in the patent of 1869
as feature of the arrangement of the three
sets in the reed-board.
The defendants expert, Mr.. Peale was
asked on his direct examination by the de-
PENDANTS, the following question: 20. .. In
the specification annexed to compliments
patent, Exhibit A, the following language is
used: These referring to the intermedi-
ate partial set of reeds l., are placed in the
reed-board over the octave set b, and run OBJ
liquely to the foundation board G., as shown in
fig. 3, the vibrating ends resting on the same
base as the other sets of reeds and b. If
a reed organ constructed with reed-boarp
containing diapason set, an octave set and
an intermediate partial set of reeds arranged
in the same manner as the patent requires
except that the vibrating ends of the inter
mediate partial set of reeds do not rest upon
the same base WITH the diapason and octave
sets, but with the vibrating ends of its reeds
varying from three-sixteenths of an inch to
five-sixteenths of an inch above the vibrating
ends of the diapason and octave sets of reeds,
would or would not a reed board so construct
ed and arranged come within the description
of said specification above quoted?"
He answered: "a 1t would not" The
invention covered by the first claim is, thcre-
fore, not the mere addition to the reed board
of an organ having two sets of reeds, of an
intermediate partial set from tenor F up
wards, but it is the pddition to such n reed
board of such an intermediate partial set plac-
ed and combined in the manner set forth in
the specification and drawings annexed to the
patent. What that manner is has been here
inbefore defined.
The second contains an admission on the
part of the defendants that an organ put in
evidence and marked compliments Exhibit G,
was made and sold by the defendants at Brat
tleboro in Vermont, prior to the commence
ment of this suit. Mr.. Renwick, the plain
titi's expert, testifes that said Exhibit c con-
tains, in his opinion, the arrangement of in
strumentalities recited in the first claim of
the plaintiffs patent, because it has reed
board corresponding with the reed-board A
a nod IN h,,. -
diapason set of reeds at one side of said reed
board and "A complete octave set of reeds at
the other side of said reed-boGrd, and having
an additional partial set of reeds extending
from about tenor + upward through the scale
of the instrument, arranged intermcdiately
between and above the other two sets OF
reeds, substantially as represented in the
drawings Of the patent, so that the width of
rced-board required is practically the same a.
that required for the two complete sets OF
reeds only; and that the reeds of said Exhib-
it @ correspond substantially, in their relative
dimensions and positions and arrangement in
the reed-board with the reeds described and
represented in the plaintiffs patent, and are,
therefore, substantially the same, considered
as mechanical Observation-Disclosures. This testi-
mony is not contradcted and it must, there.
fore, be held that the charge of infringement
of the first claim is established.
The main question in the case is, whether
the invention covered by the first claim was
new. The evidence is very voluminous. II
would not be profitable to discuss it at length.
Most of it relates to the question whether one
Arvid Dayton was the prior inventor of what
is covered by the first claim. All the evidence
and the exhibits, on the question of novelty
have been carefully considered and examined
and the conclusion of the court is, that no ar.
rangement of reed board and sets of reeds
substantially the same as that covered by the
said first claim, as that claim has been herein,
before defined, existed prior to the plaintih'sin
Vention of what is covered by said first claim
Much of the evidence in the case relates &c
Exhibit p produced by the defendants as al
organ made by Dayton in 1866, prior to the
plaintiffs invention and large part of il
consists of evidence put in by the plaintiff
with view of establishing as fact that the
parts of that organ which are contended by
the defendants to be substantially, in arrange
lilo tho -, "a,