St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-10-25
TELEPHONE DECISIONS.
The Decisions of the Patent Examiners,
on the Invention of the
Telephone.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24.-Messrs. Fisher,
Clarke and Bates, examiners in chief of ths
patent Office, rendered their decision in the
matter of Voelker VS.. Gray ct al, patent
interference case involving the invention Of
the speaking telephone. OF the fourteen
original parties there remain now only six,
viz; VIM L. Yoelker 1.-TWO applications),
Thomas A. Edison Give applications), Elisha
Gray -four applications) John II. Irwin,
James w. McDonough Zone application
each), and Alexander Graham Bell 1.-TWO pat
ents). The examiner of interference had
awarded priority of invention to Bell in cases
A, B, G, E, F, I, j and L, in cases ''D'' and
''No. 1" to Edison, and in case
"G" to McDonough. Case ''G'' is
generally regarded as the principal point at
issue and practically covers the telephone in
vention, for it is an application for ga tele-
phonic receiver consisting of a combination
in electric circuit of magnet and diaphram
supported and arranged in close proximity
thereto, whereby sounds thrown upon the
line may be reproduced accurately as to
pitch and quality Bell is the only one Of
the contestants having patents.
DeIOTe GdhluS up Tue issues III OcJall the
examiners say: ''The courts have held that
those seeking to overthrow patents should
be held to strict proof of actual and success
full prior embodiment, and the Office has ap.
piled the same rule to those asking a 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 pat
ent has not only been declared invalid by
any court, but it has actually been sustained
and upon record, which is part of the record
| here. 1t follows, therefore, that although
! satisfied from the evidence that Bell had
made an invention before fling his applca-
cation, it will not be necessary for the gen
eral purposes of this case to review those
portions of it which have led to this corfelu-
sion. 1t will be sufficient to determine
whether or not other parties have overcome
his record Of dates.'
| The issues are then taken up separately
and decided. Issue "A'' is ''the art of trans
hitting and reproducing at a distance
sonorous waves or vibrations of any descrip-
ton by increasing and decreasing
the strength of electric current,
| ETC." Edison Bell and Voelker were the
principal contestants, and the decision is
that: cit must be concluded that Edison,
| like Voelker, has not overcome Bells record
of dates.''
Issue ''B'' is an improvement in the art
of transmitting vocal sounds and words, tell
graphically, by throwing upon line through
the medium Of varying resistance, electric
impulses corresponding to the vibrations of
! a diaphragm, etc. The decision of the ex-
aminer in favor of Bell is sustained on this
point and also on issue &C" which relates to
the transmitter, consisting of a combination
| pf n diu r,br nd q ECt1id or
substance of high resistance.
Issue ''E'' is for an armature plate and
electro magnet for the same, and a closed
circuit passing from helix to source of unda-
tory electric energy, and is also awarded To
Bell.
Issue ''F," concerning the transmitter,
was not appealed and stands to Bells credit
Issue &c, - telephone receiver, consist
ing of a combination 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 McDonough.
The parties were Bell, McDonOugh, Gray and
Edison. After an exhaustive review of the
great mass OF evidence adduced upon this
point, and stating atlcngth the reasons lead
ing to the conclusion the examiners say
"Upon the whole McDonough's proofs can
not be held sufficient to overcome Bells
record Of dates. We have seen that the
party contesting the right of the patentee
must send a completed and perfected apDa-
ratus. 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 apparatus for
speed transmission, for no instrument work
ing upon its principle of making and break
ing contact can accomplish that result. In
this respect McDonough gave no more to tho
world than Reiss. AS was said of Reiss by
Justice Lowell in the American Bell Tele-
phone company VS.. Spencer, a century Of
McDonough's would never have produced
speaking telephone.
Issue 3D." for a combination with an
electro magnet Of an iron or steel diaphragm
secured to a resonant case for rendering
audible acoustic vibrations, is confirmed to
Bell. Edison's claim is supported in issue
No. for spring carrying one electrode Of
circuit of a telephone, and constantly press
ing against the other electrode and dia.
phragm.