The phonoscope (Nov 1896-Dec 1899)

8 THE PHONOSCOPE December, 1898 of even height, but with lateral undulations corresponding to the sound record. This copper plate is then used to impress the sound record into hard rubber plates, which have been temporarily softened by heat. One copper pi ite may thus be used to impress as many as a thousand rubber plates. Each rubber plate carries the sound record in the form of a spiral groove of even depth with lateral undulations corresponding to the sound record. Such a hard rubber plate is one of the important inventions of Mr. Berliner and is covered in his Patent No. 548,623, dated October 29, 1895, a copy of which, is annexed. to defendant's affidavits. Its advantages are obvious. First of all it carries a more accurate representation of the sound than any record tablet yet devised. This is due to the fact that there is no substantial resistance to the motion of the recording stylus in recording sound, for the fatty film on the zinc plate may be made almostiitfmitesimallythin, and what little resistance there is must be uniform. In the Phonograph wax records, the wax offers considerable resistance to the recording stylus, for the groove must be of appreciable depth in order to do good work in reproducing and besides the resistance to the recording stylus varies with the depth of penetration, so that the sound record is distorted to this extent. Again, the rubber record is hard and indestructible, : so much so that the indentation by the copper plate must be effected when it has been softened by heat. It would be physically impossible to cut or engrave . it with a stylus actuated by sound vibrations. Again, it has the capacity for unlimited reproduction in a cheap and simple manner, one pressure with the copper plate impressing the entire record of all the sounds. In the wax record, each record must be made separately by directly cutting the sound record upon it, sound by sound. Again, since the record in Mr. Berliner's rubber plate is at the sides of the groove instead of the bottom, the stylus need not, and does not, bear with any pressure against the record on the side walls of the groove, so that there is no distortion of sound in reproducing due to initial pressure and consequent friction. But there is another feature of Mr. Berliner's invention in which he improves on Cros, and that is the combination of the peculiar hard-rubber record which we have described w7ith the mounting for his reproducing stylus. As appears from Mr. Berliner's patents, and also from the model exhibit of the Gramophone, Mr. Berliner has discarded all the screws and gears used by prior inventors and all of the complications incident thereto, among them the necessity for the minute lateral and vertical play of the Bell and Tainter joint, and has boldly caused the record groove itself to do the work of propelling the stylus and the whole reproducing apparatus from its outermost to its innermost convolutions. This invention is also one of a most important and valuable character. It dispenses with all the complications considered necessary before his invention thereof in a manner as simple as it is possible to conceive. This idea has been patented to Mr. Berliner in his Patent No. 534,543, and more particularly in claim No. 5. It has been considered by all who have had reason to examine the subject as one of the great steps in the art of sound reproduction. If we consider the history of the two inventions of Bell & Tainter Graphophone and of the Berliner Gramophone, it will be apparent to any one skilled in patent matters, from the very history of the art, tloat there can be no conflict between two inventions developed along such different lines. It is apparent, without any technical consideration of claims or patent specifications, that nothing which Bell & Tainter has done can interfere with the work of Berliner. Berliner started from Scott and developed the ideas of Cros. Bell & Tainter started from Edison and developed the ideas of Edison. Berliner converted the theories of Cros into a practical sound-reproducing machine. Bell & Tainter converted' the ideas of Edison into the practical Graphophone. Berliner, among other things, took the metal record of Cros, with its laterally undulating grooves of even depth, and, by many improvements on the processes of Cros, converted it into a hardrubber record with a laterally undulating groove of even depth. Bell & Tainter took the tin foil cylinder of Edison with its proove having an undulating bottom and converted it into a wax cylinder with a groove having undulating bottom. Berliner used a mounting for his reproducing stylus, which should have a compass from the innermost convolutions to the outermost convolutions of the record, so that the stylus would be propelled across the whole record by the groove without the necessity of screws and gears. Bell & Tainter took the rigidly-supported stylus of Edison, and, while retaining the screws and gears of Edison, gave it the tiniest possible amount of play, so that the stylus would automatically adjust itself to the bottom of the record groove. We need merely inspect the Chapman photographs which show a cross-section of the record grooves of the Bell & Tainter wax cylinder and of the Berliner hard-rubber plates to convince ourselves that the only possible argument, however stretched it may be, which could be advanced in favor of a conflict between the Bell & Tainter and Berliner inventions has no foundation in fact. This argument manifestly is that since the lateral adjustment of mounting which Berliner employs for his stylus is wide enough to take in all of his grooves, that it must also be wide enough to take in a single groove or two adjacent grooves, and therefore, this lateral motion will permit of an adjustment of the stylus within the record groove. But when we come to examine the photographs, we find that whereas the record grooves of the Graphophone wax cylinder are very shallow and have a long slope, very much like the roll of a gently undulating prairie, the record grooves of Berliner are like little cup-shaped depressions in an absolutely flat plane. In the Berliner tablet there is a U-shaped groove or perhaps a semicircular groove, and between two adjacent grooves there is an absolutely flat space about two times as wide as the width of a single groove. Furthermore, the stylus substantially, though loosely, fits the Gramophone groove. This being the case, it is manifestly a stretch of language to talk about adjusting the Gramophone stylus within the Gramphone groove. You might as well talk about adjusting a billiard ball in the pocket of a billiard table. You put the ball over the pocket and let it drop into it; that is all the adjustment there is. So in case of the Gramophone stylus, you put the stylus over the groove and let it drop in, and when it gets in it stays there. There is only one place for it, and that is the right place. Nor is it possible to have the Gramophone stylus automatically select between two adjacent grooves, because if, in the Gramophone, the reproducing stylus falls on the flat space shown in the photograph between two adjacent grooves, it would stay there, and no amount of tapping and shaking could get it off this flat portion. When on the other hand, we look at the photographs of the Graphophone grooves and see that here there is not a question of simply putting a stylus into one place, where it naturally belongs, but that it is a question of putting the stylus on any one of a dozen places, whether on the ridge between the two adjacent grooves or anywhere along the side walls of the groove, we can readily imagine what the automatic adjustment of this stylus to the bottom of the groove means. There are twenty places where the stylus may go, and only one right place, and this right place is found, automatically, by the loose adjustment of the stylus. To make this matter still more clear, we need only refer to the common practice, necessary with every Graphophone of tapping the instrument every now and then, so as to shake the stylus down into the bottom of the record groove. An) one who has long used a Graphophone, is familiar with this practice. It brings about the functions upon which Bell & Tainter have laid so much stress, of automatically adjusting the stylus to the bottom of the record groove. But there is no need for such tapping in a Gramophone. All you have to do is to look at the instrument and see that it would be useless. The stylus fits the groove when it is in place. If the stylus is not in place tapping cannot help yon. If the stylus is in place, then tapping is unnecessary. So, whether the stylus is in the groove or out of the groove, on the flat space between two grooves, there is no use of tapping, which means there is no automatic adjustment of the stylus. The attempts of complainants' experts to make out such an automatic adjustment would never have been made had they made microscopic photographs of their own and defendants' devices. We have thus shown the history of the development of the Graphophone and have shown the two ideas about it which have been held patentable, which are first, the wax cylinder with its cut record having a groove with an undulating bottom and sloping walls; and, second, the combination of this same wax cylinder with a mounting for the reproducing arm, having a minute amount of flexibility to admit of the automatic adjustment of the reproducing stylus along the gently sloping wall of tlie groove, so that it may find the bottom of the groove where the record is. We have set forth, too, the history of the Gramophone, the two features of most importance here being, first, the hard rubber record with a lateral undulating groove of even depth produced by indentation; and, second, the combination of this record with the mounting having a wide lateral range so as to propel the stylus from one end of the record to the other. We have finally shown that this lateral motion of the reproducer in the Gramophone has no function of effecting an automatic adjustment of the stylus either within a groove of a Gramophone record or between two adjacent grooves, and that there is no yielding or gravity pressure between the Gramophone stylus and the record which is formed at the side walls of the record groove. That is to say, we have shown that it is impossible for Bell and Tainter to have a patentable claim reading on a patentable improvement in their own device, which shall at the same time read on the Berliner Gramophone. We have next to consider the decisions of the Courts to see whether they substantiate the views we have herein expressed, and here we first examine the opinion of Judge Groscup in the Amet case (74 F. R., 799.) After reciting the general principles which underly the operation of reproducing machines, Judge Groscup, in speaking of the labors of Bell & Tainter, says : "The chief mechanical problem before the inventors was the making of a suitable and practical substance of deposit or record." The opinion then proceeds to point out the well-known character of their wax record with its cut or engraved groove and its sloping walls, and the general method by which sound reproduction is effected from such a record. Thereupon the opinion quotes claims 22 and 24 of the patent No. 341,214, and proceeds in the following language: "It will be seen that, in order to follow the groove accurately, the reproducer must be loosely mounted, and this is accomplished by the universal joint described in the patent. Much stress is laid by counsel for complainant upon the patentability of the adaptation of this universal joint to the purpose of the Graphophone. If the validity of the patent depended upon this contention I would be disposed to hold against it for I can see nothing novel about the ioint except its new use, and such adaptation to nezu use is not, in my judgement, patentable invention ; but while this element, separately considered, is not invention, the combination which embraces it, in my judgement, is. We have here a clear statement to the effect that in the opinion of Judge Groscup the universal mounting of the reproducer in the Graphophone, when that reproducer is considered by itself and aside from the wax record, is not a patentable invention. We have furthermore the express holding of the Judge that the combination of this reproducer with the wax record is patentable, for it is to be remembered that the wax record was the only one before the Judge. To emphasize this point, we quote the following sentences from the decision: "Without complainant's reeord the defendant's device would be useless. It is never used except in connection with complainant's record. In the practical use, therefore, of defendant's device one of the elements of complainant's combination is actually and necessarily employed." As further emphasizing the point that Judge Groscup considered the combination of the wax record and of a loosely mounted reproducer the patentable invention of the patent before him, we quote the following (italics ours:') "The substance upon which the record is cut and the reproducer thus loosely mounted, by which it is enabled to follow the undulations of the groove, together constitute an effective portion of the mechanism. Either without the other would be useless for the purpose of a Graphophone or a rhonograph. Together they bring about a successful result. They therefore constitute a patentable combination." We conclude by quoting the following sentence from the decree in the Amet case, found in Vol. 74 of the Federal Reporter, page 100S: Continued iu our ucxt