Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-03-10
The Dhu - - Filed Against che Bell
TelenANae COapAnY.

In the bill which the government will file
against the Bell Telephone company and Alex
ander Graham Bell to test the validity OF the
Bell patents, the United States charges that
certain letters patent issued to Alexander
Graham Bell, dated March :, 1876, and jan
uary 80. 1877, were illegally and Improperly
procured to be issued. In regard TO the issue of
the nrstnamed patent Il is held that Prof. Bell
should have filed Q written description OF his
Invention in full, clear. concise and distinct
terms. being particular TO point out the I'm.
provemeuts or combinations which he claimed
Is his Invention or discovery.
II Is claimed that Prof. Bell, although up TO
time OF the issuing OF his patent he had never
method or with the apparatus described In his
application, purposely framed his application
+, nao orer nc IN ambiguous and general terms
inventions, and to deceive and mislead the
examiners OF the Patent Office and the public.
in telesnphy," with special reference 70 the
meih1 recent Of made BY him for
or mention Its capacities to transmit speech.
Prof. Bell Is charged with misleading and de-
Office. By refraining from any references TO the
transmission of articulate speech by electricity
ne caused these officers not TO make any In
the printed publications concerning IL, and
therefore the patent issued upon such deiusive
ana a mn i application was and is void.
proceeds, Prof. Bell was not the original In
yentor Of all the improvements in telegraphy
described and claimed In his application. The
invention OF Philip Refs OF Germany, i'm 1861.
IS presented At length. Stress is laid upon the
Case OF Elisha Gray, who on the same day, Feb
ruary Ia, 1875, that Prof. Bell appeared at the
Patent ONCE with his document, riled a caveat,
claiming the invention Of an instrument for
transmitting vocal sounds and conversation
geographically through an electric circuit.
proL Bells application was filed, IL is stated,
later In the day, no reference being made TO
II is charged that instead OF Prof Gray's
caveat being kept secretly in the Patent Office.
us wording become known 10 Prof. Bell through
tween an examiner F. Wiipu So nnd Proc OF
Bell and his attorneys is charged, through
which Gray was induced to abandon his
lied by Bell without proper consideration OF
the rights secured by Gray or the interests OF
the citizens Of the United states
1t Is further charged that on March 10 1876
Lnree days after the FIRST patent was issued 10
Bell, he obtained for the first time "A patent Tor
speech by an electrical-speaking telephone.
with the liquid transmitter, described In liray's
caveat, ana knowledge OF which Bell derived
rom the wrongful communication 10 him OF
the contents OF that caveat. The patent OF
March Z is declared invalid for a humber of
other technical reasons: In addition, it is
Claimed that the patent bearing date March =,
1875, Is void because IL docs not point out and
distinctly claim either q new and useful art or
new unO useful machine, new and useful
manufacture or new and useful composition
Of matter, but Is an attempt 10 include in one
and the same claim the alleged invention OF an
art aud the alleged invention OF a machine or
apparatus, ana to com bine two statutory classes
OF Inventions in single patent aud a single
claim.
The United States charges that Bell was an
ticipated In the discovery OF the electrical
speaking telephone by Philip Refs, Cromwell,
FieetwSod, Narley, Antonio Mnecci. Elisha
Gray, Thomas A. Edison, Asabel *. Eaton and
many others. 1t is claimed also that this
patent was obtained by fraud upon Amos T.
Doioear, professor OF paysics at TUFTS college in
Massachusetts, who, IL is alleged, discovered
and invented the magneto-teiephone.
Inc Dow0 case n re.erreu to AS a colusive
case, wherein facts were suppressed and the
public deceived, in order that the ee;houe
monopoly might be sustained by an apparently
legal decision. The court is asked 10 decree
that the two supposed patents described abe in
all things recalled, repealed and decrcec a,su-
iutely NULL" The court is prayed also that If
the patents are not To be wholly repealed that
the court shall decide in what part they are
void, and make decree covering that portion
OF the patent which is wrong anu illegal
II has not yet been finally settled where the
telephone suit will be brought, bu. probably il
will be at Columbus