Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-10-25

McDOnOugh, Gray and Edfson ReateD
on the Most Important Point of All
Several of the Less Vital Claims De-
cided In Favor of Bells Rivals.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 24.-Messrs. Fisher,
Clarke and Bates, examiners in chief of
the Patent Office, have rendered their de-
cision in the matter of Voelker VS.. GRAY
ct al.,a patent interference case involving
the invention of the speaking telephone.
OF the IA original parties to this contest
there remain now only six, viz: William
L. Voelker 1.-TWO applications }, Thomas A.
Edison Give applicatIons), Elisha GRAY
(four applications, John Il. Irwin and
James w. McDonOugh Zone application
each J, and Alexander Graham Bell 1.-TWO
patents). The examiner of interferences
had awarded priority of invention to Bell
in cases A, B, G, f, l, j, and l., to Edison
in cases d and No. 1, and to McDonOugh
in G, Z, G. Case II is generally regarded
as involving the principal point at issue
and practically covers the telephone in
yention, for it is an application for ''a
telephone receiver consisting of a combi-
nation in an electric circle of a magnet
and diaphragm supported and arranged
In close proximity thereto, whereby
sounds thrown upon the line may be re-
produced accurately as to pitch and
quality.
having patents. Before taking up the
issues in detail the examiners say:
The courts have held that those seeking to
overthrow patents should be held to strict
proof OF actual and successful prior embodi-
ment, and the Office has applied the same rule
TO those asking patent for that which has
already been patented to another. In this
case the rule of the Office is to be applied with
strictness. for Bells patent has not only not
been declared involved by any court, but it
has actually been sustained and upon the
record, which is part of the record here.
WHEN BELL ACHIEVED SUCCESS.
1t follows, therefore, that although satisfied
from the evidence that Bell had made the in
vention before the filing of his application, it
will not be necessary for the general purposes
OF this case to review those portions of 1t
which have led to this conclusion. 1t will be
sufficient to determine whether or not the
other parties have overcome his record dates.
The issues are then taken up separately
and decided. Issue SAP is the art Of
transmitting and reproducing at dis
tance sOnorOusl waves, or vibrations of
any description, by increasing and de-
creasing strength of an electric current,
etc. Edison, Bell and Voelker were the
principal contestants, and the decision is
that Edison, like Voelker, has not over
come BelPs record and dates. Issue ''B"
is Improvement in the art of transmitting
vocal sounds and words geographically
by throwing upon line, through a medi-
um OF varying resistance, electric i'm.
pulses corresponding to the vibrations of
the diaphragm, etc. The decision of the
examiners in favor of Bell is sustained on
this point and also on issue &C." which
relates to a transmitter consisting of
combination of diaphragm and liquid,
or an equivalent substance of high re-
sistance.
Issue "E" is for an armiture plate,
electro magnet for the same and a closed
circuit passing from the helix to the
source of undulatOry electricity, and is
also awarded to Bell. Issue ''F," con-
corning the transmitter, was not appealed
and stands to BelPs credit. Issue &C.,"
telephone receiver, consisting of a COM
binatiOn in an electric circuit Of magnet
and diaphragm, supported and arranged
in close proximity thereto, whereby
sounds thrown upon line may be repro
duced accurately as to pitch and quality,
was awarded by the examiner to Nc
DOnough.
THE GROUNDS OF THE DECISION.
The parties were Bell, McDonough, Gray
and Edison. After an exhaustive review
OF great mass OF evidence adduced upon
this point, and stating at length the reasons
lSdQlH& W IuO COHCluSlO0, Gu6 examiners
say that upon the whole McD0nough's
proof cannot be held to be sufficient to
overcome BelPs record dates. They have
seen that party contesting the right ola
patentee must show a completed and per-
fected apparatus. That McDOnough did
not have this is clear. Had patent been
granted to him for it as described in his
application or as experimental with in
June, 1875, the public would have been no
wiser than before. 1t still would have
been ignorant Of the method and appara-
tus for speech transmission, for no instru-
ment working upon its principles of MAX
ing and breaking contact can accom-
plish that result. In this respect Nc
DOnough gave no more to the world
than Reiss. AS was said of
Reiss by Mr.. Justice Lowell in the
American Bell TELEPHONE Company
vs.. Spencer, a century of McDonoughs
would never have produced a speaking
telephone. Issue "J'' for a combination
with an electro magnet of an iron-steel
diaphragm, secured to a resonant case tor
rendering audible acoustic variations, is
confirmed to Bell, as is issue ''L, which
concerns polariZed armature in the re-
ceiver. Edison's claims are supported in
issue ''No. l." for spring carrying one
electrode of the circle of a telephone and
constantly pressing against the other
electrOde and diaphragm.