[D0016AAK], Letter from Dyer Edmonds and Dyer to Thomas Alva Edison, July 23rd, 1900
https://edisondigital.rutgers.edu/document/D0016AAK
→ View document with UniversalViewer
→ View document on Archive.org
→ Re-use this digital object via a IIIF manifest
Title
[D0016AAK], Letter from Dyer Edmonds and Dyer to Thomas Alva Edison, July 23rd, 1900
Author
Recipient
Date
1900-07-23
Type
Folder/Volume ID
D0016-F
Microfilm ID
186:1021
Document ID
D0016AAK
Publisher
Thomas A. Edison Papers, School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University
Has Version
Item sets
Transcription
Letterhead of Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer
31 Nassau Street,
New York.
July 23, 1900.
Thomas A. Edison, Esq.,
Orange, N. J.
Dear Sir,-
Your application for patent No, 994 for Process of Duplicating Phonograms filed March 5th 1898, which is at present involved in interference with Lambert, has also been put in interference with an application of Frank L. Capps of Newark, New Jersey, assignee to the American Graphophone Company, on the following issue:
"The herein described process of molding sound records in celluloid, which consists of softening a celluloid tablet and then forcing the same against a suitable matrix by its own expensive force."
A claim in the words of the issue was inserted by us by amendment at the invitation of the Examiner, since there appeared to be an ample basis for the claim in the case as originally presented, the specification stating:
"These balances may therefore be made of a relatively hard material [N N N N?] or polished ebonite, vulcanized hard rubber or celluloid may be used."
Apparently all the claims of the Capps case limited to the carrying on the process in the connection with celluloid alone, and such claims would therefore be dominated by the broader claims of your case. The preliminary statement re-
<Write & say that [I can't remember?] of using [illegible] way back but only lately>
<E>
<Ans. July 31, 1900>
[TAE Marginalia] quires to be filed on or before August 10th next, and we would be glad to have your dates in order that this statement may be prepared. In the Lambert interference on the broader claim not limited to celluloid, your preliminary statement alleges that the invention was conceived, disclosed to others, drawings made, and the process actually reduced to practice in the month of October 1888, and that since that time process has been been continuously practiced at your laboratory. If you never carried on the process in connection with celluloid, we will file a preliminary statement similar to the one in the Lambert interference, giving your dates of the broad invention, but if you actually did reduce the invention to practice in connection with celluloid blanks, we wish you would let us know when such reduction to practice was effected.
Yours very truly,
Dyer Edmond & Dyer
FLD/AL
31 Nassau Street,
New York.
July 23, 1900.
Thomas A. Edison, Esq.,
Orange, N. J.
Dear Sir,-
Your application for patent No, 994 for Process of Duplicating Phonograms filed March 5th 1898, which is at present involved in interference with Lambert, has also been put in interference with an application of Frank L. Capps of Newark, New Jersey, assignee to the American Graphophone Company, on the following issue:
"The herein described process of molding sound records in celluloid, which consists of softening a celluloid tablet and then forcing the same against a suitable matrix by its own expensive force."
A claim in the words of the issue was inserted by us by amendment at the invitation of the Examiner, since there appeared to be an ample basis for the claim in the case as originally presented, the specification stating:
"These balances may therefore be made of a relatively hard material [N N N N?] or polished ebonite, vulcanized hard rubber or celluloid may be used."
Apparently all the claims of the Capps case limited to the carrying on the process in the connection with celluloid alone, and such claims would therefore be dominated by the broader claims of your case. The preliminary statement re-
<Write & say that [I can't remember?] of using [illegible] way back but only lately>
<E>
<Ans. July 31, 1900>
[TAE Marginalia] quires to be filed on or before August 10th next, and we would be glad to have your dates in order that this statement may be prepared. In the Lambert interference on the broader claim not limited to celluloid, your preliminary statement alleges that the invention was conceived, disclosed to others, drawings made, and the process actually reduced to practice in the month of October 1888, and that since that time process has been been continuously practiced at your laboratory. If you never carried on the process in connection with celluloid, we will file a preliminary statement similar to the one in the Lambert interference, giving your dates of the broad invention, but if you actually did reduce the invention to practice in connection with celluloid blanks, we wish you would let us know when such reduction to practice was effected.
Yours very truly,
Dyer Edmond & Dyer
FLD/AL