[D8954ADI], Letter from Dyer and Seely to Alfred Ord Tate, October 29th, 1889
https://edisondigital.rutgers.edu/document/D8954ADI
→ View document with UniversalViewer
→ View document on Archive.org
→ Re-use this digital object via a IIIF manifest
Title
[D8954ADI], Letter from Dyer and Seely to Alfred Ord Tate, October 29th, 1889
Editor's Notes
Referring to the correspondence sent with your letter of the 21st inst. Which we return herewith, it appears that Col. Gouraud wants the following information:####1. whether Edison's U.S. patent contains a broader claim on cutting, as distinguished from scraping, as in his British case 86. We think the 1st claim of patent No. 393,967, dated December 4, 1888 covers the matter broadly, in the following language: "The method of recording sounds for reproduction consisting in impressing sound vibrations upon a cutting reccording point and thereby cutting in the recording surface record corresponding to the sound waves, in contra distinction to the formation of such sound records by a scraping action."####Patent No. 393,968 contains the collowing claim: "A phonograph recorder having for its recording point a cutting tool with the cutting edge in advance of the stock of the tool, substantially as set forth."####2. Whether any publication was cited by the Patent Office as a reference to these claims. As to this we have to say that no anticipation was ever brought up by the Patent Office, the claims havivng been allowed without any objection of that kind.####3. As to the references cited against the Graphophone application in the Patent Office, we suppose what is wanted is with relation to the patent of Bell & Tainter, NO. 341, 214, dated May 4, 1886 which contains the broad claims for cutting the record. We find by an examination of the record of this case, in the Patent Office, that the only matters cited against it were English patent No.1, 644 of 1878 and description contained in Volume 27 of "Engineering", page 327, relating to the "six-penny phonograph". The publication in "La Nature" of the Lambrigot experiment was not referred to and we do not believe the Patent Offie was acquainted with that publication at the time the Graphophone appliccation was before it. The limitation contained in the last clause of the 1st claim of the Graphophone patent, No. 341, 214 was evidently made in view of the United States Patent to Reynolds, NO. 287, 166 dated October 28, 1888.####We think this answers what Mr. Hardingham requires. We send you herewith copies of all the U.S. patents referred to herein and we think it would be well for you to send these copies to Col. Gouraud in answering his letter.####Yours very truly,####Dyer Seely####[Enclosure]:####12th October, 1889.####T.A. Edison Esqr,####Orange,####New Jersey,####U.S.A.####Dear Edison:--####re Lambrigot's anticipations.####I enclose copies of letters from Mr Hardingham my Patent Agent, regarding the Graphophone claim for cutting.####I am told that conrad Cook's report on the Graphophone Patents, extracts from which were published in the Graphophone Syndicate prospectus I sent you, contained references to this case of Lamrigot's as published in the "Engineer" of about the same date, but although he tried to smooth it over as unimportant yet it was considered of sufficient importance for the promoters of the Graphophone syndicate to leave it out of their prospectus.####Wanted from America.####Mr Hardingham says that it is important to know whether there is in your United States Patent the same claim as contained in your English Case 86, viz:--No 2 "The employment of a cutting style having a true cutting action"? If there is, he asks "was there any reference to publication in this connection brought forward by the United States Patent Office as alleged anticipation, and if so what?" He aslo says that it would be important to know what references, if any, were made in connecction with the issue of the American Graphophone Patents. He thinks that it may probably be found that the Patent Office did make reference to the Lambrigot experiment. If so, that fact would have great weight here in showing that they made a claim in their British Patent in the face of knowledge of the prior publication in question. You have in your own possession information regarding any references to your own patents, perhaps you can get the information as regards references in connection with the Graphophone Patents.####Yours sincerely####G.E Gouraud####[Enclosure]####Copy of Letter.####From G.G.M. Hardingham, To Colonel Gouraud.####Col: Gouraud,####Dear Sir,####In compliance with yout instruction's, I have examined the specification to Johnson's Patent, NO 6027, A.D. 1886, and considered the question whether, by virtue of that Patent, the proprietors thereof have acquired an exclusive right to cut "in a solid body the record corresponding in form to sound waves", regard being had to the desrciption of "Lambrigot's Speaking Plates", published in "La Nature" the 3rd of May 1879, No 309.####Lambrigot referring to Edison's orginal phonograph-describes the substitution for the recording point of "a small blade of steel in the shape of a knife" the surface operated in consisting of "a layer of stearing". The steel blade alluded to is employed, first, to sccrape down the stearine and impart is it a perfectly smooth surface, and ssecondly, under the influence of the sound vibration's, to striate the stearine surface and produce therein an exact record of the vibratory movements to which the blade is subjected.####Assuming No 309 of "La Nature" to have been published in this country before 1886, it would seem clear that "the method of forming a record" by "cutting in a solid body" was not capable of being validly patented at the date named in the broad sence defined by Johnson's first claim.####From his specification, it would appear that the working extremity of the recording style is so formed as to cut and actually remove the material from the record groove and not merely to displace it. The first claiming clause does not, however limit the method of forming the record to this kind of oepration, but inlcudes broadly such a method of cutting the record as would be affected by the employment of a recording style in the form of a knife blade as proposed by Lambrigot. Johnson's aim appears to have been to produce a continuous record groove with a view to offering an efficient guide to the reproducing style; but it will be obvious that this is precisely the result which Lambrigot secured by the employment of his knife-blade recording style.####I am,####Your's Faithfully####G.G.M. Hardingham.####[name mentions: Dyer & Seely, A.O. Tate, GE Gouraud, Charles Tainter, Lambrigot, Johnson, G.G.M Hardingham, La Nature, United States Patent Office]
Author
Recipient
Date
1889-10-29
Type
Folder/Volume ID
D8954-F
Microfilm ID
127:315
Document ID
D8954ADI
Publisher
Thomas A. Edison Papers, School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University