Morning journal and courier., 1884-10-25
IN FAVOR OF BELL.
Decisions in Important Cases Concern-
 ing the Telephone.

Decisions in Important Cases Concern
 ing the Telephone.
 WASHINGTON, Oct. 2.-The examiners in chief of the patent office, in the celebrated telephonic interference patent case, have sus- tained the decision of the examiner of inter ferences in favor of Bell as to issues A, B, c, E,F, I, and L and have reversed the de- cision so far as it applied to issue "G" (which involves the principal feature of the tele- phone), which was awarded to McDonough, and which the examiners in chief have de- cided in Bells favor.
 Messrs Fisher, Clark and Bates, exanin- CTS in chief of the patent office, have rem dered their decision in the matter of Voelker versus Gray ct al., patent interference case involving the invention of the speaking tele- phone. Of the fourteen original parties there remain now only six, viz: William L. Voel- ker two applications), Thomas A. Edison five applications), Elisha Gray -four ap- plications), John H. Irwin, James w. Me Donough Gone application eaeh), and Alex ander Graham Bell two patents). The ex- aminer of interferences had awarded priority of invention to Bell in cases A, B, c, B, F, I, and L. and in cases 'FD" and "No." 1" to Edison, and in case t'G'' to McDonough. Case 'sG'' is generally regarded as the prin- cipal point at issue and practically covers the telephonic invention, for it is an appli- cation for "a telephonic receiver consisting of the combination in an electric circuit of a magnet and diaphragm supported and ar ranged in close proximity thereto, whereby sounds thrown upon the line may be repro duced accurately as to pitch and quality" Bell is the only one of the contestants hay ing 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 embodimlnt, and the office ] has applied the same rule to those asking a patent for that which has already been pat ented to another. In this case the rules of | the office is to be applied with strictness, | for Bells patent has not only not been de | clared invalid by any court, but it has actually been sustained, and upon record which is part of the record here. It | follows, therefore, that although satisfied ! from the evidence that Bell had made the in ! vention before the fling of his application, \ it will not be necessary for the general pur poses of this case to review those portions of \ it which have led to this conclusion. It will
 
 ! other parties have overcome his record dates.n
 Issue sG rEta telephonic receiver consisting of the combination in an electric circuit of 8 magnet and diaphragm supported and ar ranged in close proximity thereto, whereby sounds upon the line may be reproduced ac- curately as to pitch and quality, was award ed by the examiner to McDonough. The 1 parties were Bell, AcDonough, Gray and Edison After an exhaustive review of the great mass of evidence addueed upon this point, and stating at length the reasons lead ing to the conclusions, the examiners say: ''Upon the whole, MeDonough's proofs connot be held to be sufficient to overcome Bells record dates. We have seen that party contesting the right of a patentee must show complete and perfected apparatus. That McDonouph did not have this is clear. Had patent been granted to him for it as de- scribed in his application, or as experiment. ed with in June, 1875, the public would have been no wiser than before. It still would have been ignorant of the method and apparatus for speech transmission; for no instrument working upon it's princi-5 pie of making and breaking contact can ac-. comp1ish that result In this respect Mo Donough gave no more to the world than Reiss. AS was said of Reiss by MT. Justice Lowell, in American Bell Telephone company vs, Spencer, a century of McDonough would never have produced 8 speaking telephone. Issue stJ. j for the combination with an electro magnet of an iron or steel diaphragm secured to a resonant case for rendering aud l ible acoustic vibrations, is confirmed to Bell, as is issue s'L," which concerns the polarized armature in the receiver. Edison's claim is supported in issue FsNo. 1 ," for spring car ryinp one eleetrode of the circuit of 8 tele- phone and constantly pressing against the other electrode and diaphragm.