[D0129AAJ], Letter from Meffert and Sell to Dyer Edmonds and Dyer, October 25th, 1901
https://edisondigital.rutgers.edu/document/D0129AAJ
Transcription
Messrs Dyer, Edmonds + Dyer, New York Gentlemen, Re Edison, accumulator cases. In the matter of the several accumulator cases I have had a number of conferences with Mr. Rafn and Messrs Seubel + Professor Wohl and a hearing before the Examiner. In view of the explanations, given by Mr. Rafn, it seems to me that matters are highly advanced and our position strengthened. Nevertheless the Examiner did not favorably consider the claims presented to him in a hearing on 18th inst. In the meantime I have filed replies and new specifications meeting the objections raised by the examiner. The papers concerning cases 121 and divisional cases are forwarded to Messrs Brandon Brothers whereas the papers concerning 122a, 122b, 122c are sent for you by this mail under required cover. I send you furthermore are a copy of a paper filed by me on 12th inst preparatory for the hearing filed by me on 18th. Mr. Rafn has had the kindness to prepare English translations of the papers for Mr. Edison and will forward me a copy which will be sent to you after finishing. Regarding cases 122a, 122b, 122c, the chances for allowance are satisfactory, although the Examiner has made some objections. I hope that specifications and claims as now presented will be satisfactory. You will perceive that the claims drawn by me are somewhat broader than those mentioned in your instructions, but I hope that it will be possible to have these claims granted. I take the liberty to shake that it would facilitate the allowance of human applications, if you would communicate me the views which have been discussed in Mr. Edison’s laboratory preparatory for the inventions forming [?] object of applications for patent. In view of the German practice[?] it is difficult to have a case allowed merely on behalf of novelty it is in most cases necessary to show that a new technical effect is reached in consequence of new features. In this respect a possible[?] theoretical argument is of higher value than a considerable practical effect; for the theoretical argument is intelligible per se, where as the practical effect must be proved by testimony of one who is skilled in the art. For this reason I hope that the information given by Mr. Rafn have highly strengthened our position, as above stated. Yours truly, Meffert und Dr. Sell