The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-05-29
The Commissioner Rules Squarely Against
Gilliland and in Favor of Eckley,
Seeley Eckert.
Merrick Begins the Closing Afgu-
ment in the Star Route-Case.
The President and the Colored Convention
Mr.. Dezendorf's Call on Postmaster
General Gresham-Notes
TELEPHONE PATENTS.
Decision of the Commissioners in the "In-
reference" Cases.
Special to the Ipdianapolis Journal


reference" Cases.
Special to the indianapolis Journal.
WASHINGTON, May 2S.-The Commissioner
of Patents has rendered decision in the
somewhat celebrated interference case of
Gllliland VS.. Eckert, Seely & Eckert, which
will be of considerable interest 20 the people
of the West who have been watching the
progress of this telephone controversy. The
decision is squarely against Mr. Gilliland.
The subject-matter in controversy is des-
cribed as "a telephone apparatus the adjust
able and swinging support pivoted to swing
in both directions, combined with means for
completing the circuit" The Commissioners
decision reads:
The examiner of interferences and the exam
lner-ln-chief unite in awarding priority of inveI-
tton of the subject-matter in issue to Eckert
Seely IL Eckert. From the decision of the latter
tribunal appeal is taken TO the Commissioner in
person. The testimony shows that sometime in
September, $780, Gilliland, while at a conven-
ton at Niagara Falls, conceived of the invention,
MADE sketch OF 1t, and shortly afterward
experimental model. After trying the model in
his shop in Indianapolis, nothing further seems
TO have been done with the invention until after
ms contestants had completed their devices, and
IT had been shown to Gilliland. Eckert, Seely &
Eckert claim to have made the invention on Dec.
., 1880, and on that day reduced II to practice.
Prior to that time they had made great many
experiments and sketches, but had not actually
completed the invention. 1t is shown that on that
day they did complete the invention, made
working model used IT, and therefore completed
one more perfect in its finish and parts. Some
time IN the early part OF 1882 Gilliland visited
Cincinnati for the purpose Of purchasing the in
ventiOn of Eckert, Seely and Eckert, and had
interview with them. Eckert, seey and Eckert
claim that this interview was on the 9TH day of
January, 1882, while Gilliland says it was in
March OF the same year. That an interview
Cured for the purpose mentioned is established
by the testimony of all the parties to this case
GilHland denies that he made certain statements
ascrlbed TO him by the others, but he does not
deny that he tried to buy Of his contestants the
invention here in controversy, aud that they
were requested to wait until they should hear
fnrther from him on the subject. In May follow
ing this interview Gililand filed application for
a patent for the invention,
1t is immaterial whether the interview occur
red In January or March of the same year, The
only thing which is material with reference to it
is the fact that Gilliland seeking TO pur-
chase from others an invention which he now
claims to have made himself The Inconsistency
OF such course is apparent In his testimony
lie states that he did not disclose TO Eckert,
Seely and Eckert that he made the invention.
Naturally person who had made invention
and proved its praotieabity by experiments
claiming the same thing were asking $4,000
therefor. The only reason given by Gilliland
why he did not make known his invention at the
time 1s that he supposed Eckert, Seely and Eek
ert had patent for their invention. II he
were the prior inventor, however, the fact
that they had a patent should not deter
MIN from securing one to himself. The fact
that the interview above referred TO did occur,
and that propositions of purchase and sale were
made, and the parties separated with the under
standing that correspondence would be had with
reference to the purchase, strengthens the i'm
preston received in reading Gllliland's testi-
mOny In relation to his inventions and expert
ments, that they we're simply ex xpernents which,
after trial, were abandoned. 1t is claimed that
the invention alleged to have been made by Gil
liland was assigned by him to the Bell Tele-
phone Company, and for that reason it WAS not
prosecuted. If the invention disclosed by Gil
liland had been considered of any importance
whatever, either by him or the said company,
there can be no doubt that some steps would
have been taken to secure patent therefore be-
fore May, 1882.
1t is quite evident to my mind that except for
the fact that Eckert, Seely & EcBerL had made
the invention, reduced IL to practice and were
asking what might be considered large price
therefor, there never would have been q revival
OF the experiments made by Gilllland, nor would
he have ever made a claim for the invention, |
concur, therefore, in the views expressed by
each of the other tribunals of the office, that
whatever was done by Gilliand should be
treated as an abandoned experiment, and that
priority Of invention should be awarded Eckert,
Seely & Eckert.
Mr.. Gilliland was represented by C. G.
Bradford, of Indianapolis, in the argument
before the Commissioner a few weeks ago.