Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1884-01-25

aminers-iu chief the decision rejecting the
three tuning claims was affirmed, and that re-
jecting the other four claims was reversed,
and the patent was issued accordingly. There
is nothing in claims l and 2, as granted,
which has any reference to any new method
Of tuning, unless it is to DO intended, in &C.
cordance with the description, that the par.
tial set is to be capable of being tuned a triAa
above or below the diapason set Except,
perhaps, TO that extent all there is in the de.
scriptive part Of the specification in relation
to new method of tuning may be dismissed
from consideration as II was introduced TO
lay foundation for the original claims 2, 3
and 4, in reference to such new method of
tuning. Claims I and 3 as they stand, re.
late only to the arrangement of the reed.
board and the sets of reeds, in conjunction
with the foundation board and the valve open
ings and the valves.
The specification shows that the inventor
takes a reed. board having two sets of reeds
running through the entire scale, diapason
set aud an octave or principal set, and makes
no change in the foundation board, or in the
case, bellows pedal, &c. The reed board
with the two sets was old. In its structure,
as shown in figure of the drawings, and as
described in the specification, the lowest and
longest reeds in the two sets are placed 80
near together ps TO leave between them
room only for the tracker pin which COM
municstes motion from the key to the valve (;
but, as the reeds shorten continually as the
scale proceeds upward, there is a vacant
space between the end of the reeds in the
two SETS which space continually grows wild
or. Within that space the inventor intro
duces q third set of reeds commencing at or
about tenor + and running upward through
the scale. He places this third set over the
octave set, and the reeds run downwardly in
direction oblique to the foundation board,
and their vibrating ends, which are the lower
ends, rest on the same base as that Of the
other two sets of reeds. They are of the
same size as the corresponding reeds in the
diapason set. The point of advantage in
bringing down the vibrating ends of the
reeds in the third set, so that they shall rest
on the same base with the vibrating ends of
the reeds in the other two sets, is shown by
the evidence to be the same point of advant-
age which is set forth in the specification of
the prior patent granted to the plaintiff on
the 9th of January, 1866. In that the inven.
ton is stated to be to so make the reed board
that the three or four sets OF reeds in it shall
be acted upon instantly and simultaneously
by the 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 horizontal plane, and placing the other
sets on an inclined plane, each with its base
on the same level as the first and second sets,
thus making the head of each reed equdis.
tant from the valve and making each produce
instantaneous concerted sound
There was introduced in evidence a reed
organ, known as Exhibit No. q, containing a
reed-board With two sets of reeds and third
partial set, alleged to have been made by one
Dayton in 1866 prior to the plaintiff in
e . a
question as to whether the reed board and
reeds in this organ were made prior to the
plaintiffs invention, in the shape in which
they appeared when put in evidence. The
circuit court decided that question in the at
hrmative, but nevertheless it held that the
arrangement of reed board aud reeds found
in 81 did not embrace the entire arrangement
specifedRnd claimed in claim ! of the patent,
because, although it had a reed-board no wild
err than was necessary for two full sets OF
reeds, and had an additional partial set Of
reeds put in op an incline, aud although the
reeds in that set may have been tuned fiat in
relation to the diapason set, yet such reeds
did not rest on the same base as that of the
other two sets of reeds. We concur with the
circuit court in it's conclusion as to the gen.
uineness and date of No. 81, but are of opin-
ion that there is nothing found in the alleged
infringing organs which, so far as claim l of
the plaintiffs patent Is concerned, is not
found in No. 81. The vibrating reeds in the
partial set i'll the alleged infringing organs do
not rest on the same base as that Of the other
two sets of teds, and occupy position in
that respect no different, in reference to any
requirement OF the plaintiffs patent from
that occupied by the vibrating ends of the
partial set in No. 2l. In all other respects in
which the alleged infringing reed. board and
reeds embrace what is covered by claim l on
the plaintiffs patent, what they contain is
found in No. 81.
The material point in claim is the con-
traction of the valve openings. The idea is
that the valve openings and passages for the
two complete sets Of reeds and the interme-
date partial set are contracted or condensed
within the same space which was usually oc-
cupied by the valve openings and passages
for only two complete sets of reeds in an in
strument of the usual prior construction; and
that, therefore, no'mOre force is required to
be applied to the keys to open the valves
than where only two full sets of reeds are
used. The circuit court WIS of opinion that
the valve openings in No q were not the
contracted valve openings of the plaintiffs
patent because they were as large as the
valve opt nings in a reed board having three
full sets of reeds; and that the lowest and
longest reeds in No. 2l did not, as in the
plaintiffs arrangement have their vibrating
ends as near together as they could be, with
room between them only for the tracker pin.
Our conclusion is that the absolute length
and size Of the valve opening was matter
of Judgment, in view Of the state of ART
shown, and that there was no invention in
making its length and size greater or less in
reed board Of given width, or where the
reed board WIS made wider or narrower, oil
had more or less sets Of reeds in it, either
full or partial The Dimensions of the valve
opening and the valve are regulated by the
judgment of the manufacturer as to the guam
tity of air necessary, and the resistance tc
be overcome in working the valve, and the
inconvenience of the leakage of air. We are
also satisfied that the vibrating ends of the
lowest and longest reeds in No. 81 were as
near Together as they are in the reed-board
of alleged infringing organs.
1t results from these considerations that
the decree of the circuit court must be re-
vorsed, and the case be remanded to tina,
court, with direction to dismiss the bill
True copy.
Test (-iRnsd) JAMES II. McKESNEY,
Clerk Supreme Court United States.
In order to show our readers the fiimsin, 81