The motion picture projectionist (Nov 1929-Oct 1930)

14 Motion Picture Projectionist October, 1930 Slits — Basis of a Patent Tangle With Some Notes on the Recent Decision Rendered in the Ries Patent Case and a Resume of the General State of the Art By H. R. Van Deventer THE U. S. Patent No. 1,607,480 dated November 16, 1926, to E. E. Ries, entitled "Method of Reproducing Photographic Sound Records," was filed May 21, 1913, and was therefore in the Patent Office thirteen years. It contains five claims, all of which were involved in a suit in Equity No. 735 in the District Court of the U. S. for the District of Delaware: — -General Talking Pictures Corporation and DeForest Phonofilms, Inc., plaintiffs, again the Stanley Co. of America, defendant. On June 28, 1930, Judge Morris wrote a memorandum decision saying "That Ries patent, in suit, number 1,607,480, for Method of Reproducing Photographic Sound Records, granted November 16, 1926, is valid and infringed by the defendant." This was one of the last decisions rendered by Judge Morris before leaving the Bench. Decision An Important One The usual injunction issued in due course, the defendant filed the customary bond, and the case is now on appeal. Meanwhile, business seems to be proceeding as usual, although the industry is awaiting with interest the final decision in the case. If the patent is sustained, it may have a far-reaching effect on the future of the sound picture industry. Those who feel that the patent is invalid on account of the prior art believe that new evidence to this effect will be presented in other cases in which the patent will be involved or this evidence may possibly appear in connection with a suit involving the corresponding Canadian patent. The Ries Claims On the other hand, those who, with the plaintiffs, believe the patent to be valid, point out that during its stay of thirteen years in the Patent Office, it was subjected to a series of proceedings there and that the claims as finally allowed were allowed in spite of these proceedings, and that also the defendant in the case mentioned above put in a complete and very elaborate history of the prior art and that in spite of this presentation, Judge Morris held the patent valid and infringed. This patent relates to the use of the so-called "slit." The claims are all method claims and the slit is variously expressed therein. In claim 1, it is termed "a small aperture in alignment with the record band." In claim 2, it is termed "a highly restricted aperture." In claim 3, it is termed "a highly restricted aperture." In claim 4, "a small window aperture," and in claim 5, "a small window aperture." To obtain a correct idea of what Ries contributed to the art, it is interesting to note the following, which gives a fairly representative picture of the state of the art prior to the time Ries filed in 1913. Some of this data was introduced as evidence in the suit against the Stanley Co. above mentioned. Re: Fritts and Case Patent No. 1,203,190 to Fritts is of interest as it was filed in 1880, reposed in the Patent Office for thirtysix years, and issued October 31, 1916. The patent contains 91 claims and discloses various means of recording and reproducing pulsations or varfations in sounds and other phenomena. The remaining Fritts patents Nos. 1,203,191, 1,213,613— 614, 615 and 616 are all of interest as showing the state of the art prior to Ries. The Patent No. 1,605,531 to Case filed in 1925 and patented November 2, 1926, is of interest as containing 8 claims on a slot unit in which the dimensions of the sheet metal in which the slot is made is definitely given. See also patents to Case, Nos. 1,605,526, Nov. 2, 1926; 1,605,527, Nov. 2, 1926; 1,605,528, Nov. 2, 1926; 1,605,529, Nov. 2, 1926; 1,605,530, Nov. 2, 1926; and Reissue 16,910, dated March 20, 1928; 1,647,504, dated Nov. 1, 1927. The Earlier Art Turning now to what is rather early art, the patent No. 631,558, Aug. 22, 1899, is interesting as showing a phonograph, as it is termed in which the sound record is made on a sensitized strip by means of light. Also patent 364,472 of June 7, 1887. The British patent No. 13,924 of 1906 is also of interest. The article in Electrical Experimenter of June, 1913, by Samuel Wein is interesting as referring to the work of Dr. Ernst Ruhmer as published in the Scientific American of June 20, 1901; and in July, 1929, the Motion Picture Projectionist contained an article referring to Ruhmer's early work and giving some early references which have a bearing on the slit patent situation. In November, 1929, the Motion Picture Projectionist contained an ar ticle dealing with the work of Eugene A. Lauste, and some references given in this article are of importance. The International Photographer of August, 1929, contains an article of interest respecting Lauste's work; and The Bioscope Service Supplement for October, 24, 1928, contains a further description. Lauste's patent specification No. 18,057 of 1906 is of interest, and the same is reproduced in American Cinematographer for Sept., 1928, under the heading "Who Invented Talkies?" Ruhmer's Noted "Work Ruhmer published elaborate accounts of his work in such papers as Elektrotechnischen Zeitschrift in 1905, and actually published a catalog or price list of his sound recording and reproducing apparatus prior to 1908. In Natur und Kultur published at Munich in 1903 Ruhmer shows and describes his sound recording apparatus, and those who know of his work at this time are emphatic in stating that he not only employed the slit, but that the results accomplished by him could not be secured without it. Slit Dimensions Keypoint Of course, those who wish to see the Ries patent upheld declare that all of this early work merely proves that no one took the final step that measured the distance between comparative failure and success until Ries appeared, and that the restricted slot of Ries taken in connection with the other elements claimed by him resulted in success where others had failed. On the other hand, those who do not believe the Ries patent to be valid, believe that the early work of Ruhmer, Lauste, and others disclosed everything used by Ries and that the dimensions of the slit are merely a matter of degree, and even if the narrow slit obtained results not secured with wider ones, that the width of the slit is a matter of degree and is not patentable. It is thought that a perusal of the patents and other data herein given and the other art referred to in the suit should give those interested a fairly good idea of the state of the art to which the Ries patent relates. I am indebted to Samuel Wein for the use of his extensive collection of literature respecting the early history of this art in connection with the preparation of these notes.