[D8954AAB], Letter from Dyer and Seely to Alfred Ord Tate, January 8th, 1889


View document with UniversalViewer   → View document on Archive.org  → Re-use this digital object via a IIIF manifest


[D8954AAB], Letter from Dyer and Seely to Alfred Ord Tate, January 8th, 1889

Editor's Notes

New York, January 8th 1889####A.O. tate Esq.####Orange,####N.J####Dear Sir:####We have carefully considered the Mexican patent question as stated in your letter of December 31st, 1888 and letters enclosed therewith. You speak of our writing to Mr. Mendez, but we do not see what there is for us to write him at present. It appears from his letter that two patents have been granted in Mexico, both of which are withheld until a payment of $150 is made IN EACH CASE. These patents we assume bear the date of the decree, september 29th, 1888. You seem to have received a copy of only one decree but Mendes's letter refers to two, so there was probably one issued for each patent. No doubt one patent covers Set 84 and the other Set 85, since it appears from Gouraud's letter and from the list of patents which he has sent us that he only forwarded these two sets to Mexico.####With regard to Case 84 both United States patents overed by this set have been issued, and were issued before September 29th, 1888, the date of the Mexican patent, so that this patent can be proceeded with without affecting any patents here. As to Set 85, two United States Patents have been issued, both before the Mexican patent and these patents are therefore not affected by the Mexican patent,--but there are still four applications pending in the United States Patent Office which are covered by this set and if the Mexican patents for ten years under this set is proceeded with the patents which may be issued on these applications will be limited to the term of the Mexican patent. The applications relate to methods of making phonogram blanks. Two of them are those which were in interference with Taintor on which priority of invention was decided against Mr. Edison and they are therefore of no value. Another relates to a method of making cylindrical blanks by forming such blanks with an opening on one side and subsequently closing such opening by filling it with melted wax. The fourth relates to making phonogram blanks by first molding the cylinder and then cutting them internally and externally to make true surfacces. This application has been rather badly rejected in the Patent Officce on the ground of lack of invention and we do not know that it is of much consequence. We think you should ask Me. Edison whether he considers it will be any great less if the patents, which may sometime be issued on these two applications, should be limited to ten years, and if he thinks they are of small consequence there is no reason why the Mexican patent in Case 85 should not go on also.####It appears that in these matters the Mexican Government has dispersed with the requirement of certified copies of prior patents in other countries so there will be nothing to do apparently in order to have the patents issued except to send to Mendez the required amount of $150 for each patent.####We think there should also be a third Mexican patent taken which will include all the United States Patnets that have been issued up to the present time with the excception of thos included in Sets 54 and 85. We have the certified copies of the United States patents necessary to do this and can forward them to Mendez if you wish us to do so, but before doing this the matter of cases 54 and 85 should be settled and you ought at once to get Mr. Edison's views on the matter as stated above and instruct Mendez accordingly.####We return the letters of Col. Gouraud and Mr. Mendez herewith.####Yours truly,####Dyer & Seely####[name mentions: Luis Mendez, U.S. Patent Office, A.O. Tate, Dyer & Seely]





Folder/Volume ID


Microfilm ID


Document ID



Thomas A. Edison Papers, School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University
Download CSV | JSON