The phonoscope (Nov 1896-Dec 1899)

10 THE PHONOSCOPE February, 1899 no such construction for their claims, and we urge that it is absurd to suppose that they can do so. Should they succeed in so doing, it will be time enough to consider whether the lost motion of the Berliner reproducer effects the functions of permitting an adjustment against the warping of the plates, or against a non-mathematical character of the pitch of the thread. The experiments to which Mr. Lyons and Mr. Berliner have both testified, conclusively show that a lost motion connection for such purpose is unnecessary in the Gramophone art. Whether it is employed or not in commercial machines we need not now consider, because these complainants have no claims for such features, have never established their right to such features, and we insist never will establish their right to a monopoly of such functions. Although it is not necessary, for the purpose of this present motion, to discuss the question of the infringement of claims 19 to 23 as they read on their face, and disregarding the decisions of Judges Groscup and SniPMAX, we may briefly point out that the Gramophone does not infringe claim 19, because the style does not adjust itself automatically to the sound record. It is placed in the sound record where it belongs, and there is no adjustment after that. Of claim 20, we may make the same remark. Of claim 21, we may say that the reproducer is not held against the record, being the undulating lines at the side walls of the groove, byyielding pressure. Of claim 22, we may make the same remark made for claims 19 and 20, and further say that we employ no rubbing style, for our style has no initial frictional pressure against the record by which it could rub. As to claim 23, we may say that we employ no sloping walls in the sense in which these words are used in the Gramophone construction, and we have no style which "rubs" over the record. So that, even if we disregard the prior decision of Judges Groscup and Shipmax, and give to claims 19 to 23 of complainant's patent a construction as broad as is contended for, we find that defendant's device does not infringe complainant's claims. In this connection we may refer to the testimony of Mr. Arthur S. Browne, who acted as complainant's expert in the Leeds cace. In answer to x-O. 103, quoted in Brownell's affidavit, Mr. Browne testified that not all joints having a motion in two directions at right angles to each other were to be considered as the universal joint of Bell & Tainter, but only such joints as l ad these movements "in such a fashion as to perform the offices set forth in the patent." It is manifest, however, that the Berliner joint does not have the offices set forth in the Bell & Tainter Patent, as we have abundantly shown. But there is another peg on which the affidavits filed in complainant's behalf seek to hang a reason for granting a preliminary injunction at ibis time against these defendants. Briefly stated, it amounts to this ; that the reproducing machine which Judge Shipmax had before him was one in which the stylus was carried at the end of a glass tube, which glass tube was mounted in a universal fashion, so as to be free. to rise and fall, being held down by spring pressure, and being propelled from the convolutions of the groove at one end of the record to the convolutions of the groove at the other end of the record by the convolutions themselves and without any other gearing or screw mechanism. The argument, then, is that as the Berliner Gramophone employs a similar mounting for its stylus the Gramophone must be considered an infringement of complainant's rights, since the F.cophone was so considered. The argument falls to pieces when we bear in mind the fact that the Kcophone uses a wax cylinder precisely like that described in the Bell & Tainter patent, and in fact the very same wax cylinder that is sold on the market by these complainants, with very broad and very shallow record grooves, having sound undulations at the bottom of the grooves. When then the stylus of the Ecophoue rests on one of these grooves, its vertical motion effects the function which is effected in the Bell & Tainter Patent, of pressing with a yielding pressure against the undulating record in the bottom of the grooves. So, too, when the Ecophone sty 1 11= rests on the record groove of the Bell & Tainter wax cylinder, its capacity for lateral adjustment permits it to slide down the gently sloping walls of the record groove to reach the bottom of the record. That is to say, the stylus, by reason of the lateral adjustment of its mounting, is permitted to laterall}" adjust itself within the space or width of a single groove. Manifestly, then, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Ecophone stylus mounting, when used in connection with the wax cylinder of the Bell & Tainter Graphophone, constitutes an infringement of the Graphophone construction. But let us examine what would happen if we were to use the stylus and mounting of the Ecophone on the hard rubber Gramophone record of Berliner. It is plain at once that the vertical adjustment and spring pressure would no longer have the function of pressing the stylus in a yielding manner against the undulating record ; for, since the stylus would substantially fit the cupshaped record groove of the Gramophone tablet, there would be no initial pressure between the side walls of the stylus and the undulating side walls of the record grooves, which constitute the record. So, alco, since the Ecophone stylus, when used in connection with a Gramophone tablet, would cooperate with cup-shaped grooves with steep side walls into which it fits, there could be no question of a lateral adjustment within the width of a single groove. The st}-lus would be put at the single and only place in the groove where it belongs. Kcr would there in such case be any possibility of automatically selecting one or other of two adjacc-ut grooves, for if the Ecophone stylus, when used on a Gramophone tablet, got on the ridge between two adjacent grooves, it would stay there. No amount of tapping could dislodge it. In fact, this whole subject of lateral adjustment within the space of a single groove, or within the space of two adjacent grooves, is well illustrated b} the fact that it is never uecessarv to tap the Gramophone reproducing machine, and it is frequently necessary to tap the Graphophone machine. The Ecophone stylus used on a Gramophone tablet would never need tapping. Such a thing as tapping a Gramophone record is unheard of. Such a thing, however, as tapping a Graphophone record is common practice and part of the instructions given to the purchaser of Graphophone machines. From the fact, then, that Judge Shipmax found the Ecophone mounting and stylus, when used in connection with the peculiar record grooves of the Bell & Tainter wax cylinder, an infringement cf the Bell & Tainter Patent, it by no means follows that he would so have considered the combination of this Ecophone stylus and mounting when used with a Gramophone tablet. Indeed, when the facts are considered, it is quite certain that he would have held to the contrary. In this connection we may point out that the Ecophone is a mongrel or hybrid device, being in fact in some respects like the Graphophone and in other respects like the Gramophone. In so far as this Ecophoue utilizes the idea of dispensing with all screws and gears, and of having the record itself do the work of propelling the stylus, it is an infringement of Berliner's invention as covered by claim 5 of his patent No. 534,543, before referred to, In other words, the Kcophone comprises within itself two inventions, the one being its capacity for carrying out certain ideas of Bell & Tainter, the other being its capacity for executing the ideas of Berliner. The only invention or function or capacitv which Judge Shipmax had in mind were those which belong to the Bell & Tainter side of the device. He did not have before him those functions which belong to the Berliner side of the device, for these were never raised, and, therefore, never considered or decided. Neither wasit necessary to decide them so long as the Ecophone stylus carrying arm was used in connection with Bell & Tainter's wax cylinder. Continued in our next *> Steel to be a IRew flftetal Thomas A. Edison, Jr., Invents a Process Which He Says Will Increase Its Strength. A company capitalized at $1, 000,000 and incorporated in West Virginia will shortly, if its promises are fulfilled, revolutionize the hardening of steel. It will, it is said, make a six-inch plate equal in power of resistance to a fifteen-inch plate treated by the Harvey or Krupp process. It will, in fact, if it can support its claims, upset the present system of building warships, the present system of manufacturing shells and main other things besides. The President of the new company is Thomas A. Edison, Jr. The Vice-President is William Holzer, Mr. Edison's uncle, and the name of the corporation is the Thomas A. Edison, Jr., and William Holzer Steel and Iron Process Company. Franklin D. Palmer, of Poughkeepsie, is Secretary and Treasurer. The directors are C. P. Stimson, Franklin Doty, C. P. Hull, a former Mayor, and C. H. Sherrill, the present Mayorof Poughkeepsie, where the works are located. Mr. Edison made expansive claims when asked about his discover} recently. "We can by our new process increase the elastic limit and the tensile strength of steel while we decrease its expansion and contraction. That is the key-note to the whole business," said the inventor. "Tests made by us," continued Mr. Edison, "show that the tensile strength has been increased by our process from 6S,ooo pounds per square inch to 71,000 pounds, and that the expansion and contraction have been decreased from 29.33 to 24.66 per cent, and from 63 35 to 62.14 per cent." "What benefit will the world at large get from vour discovery?" was asked. "Steel will become practically indestructible," was the reply. "Steel rails cannot spread. The delicate machinery of ocean liners cannot break ; vou will hear no more of broken shafts. An English firm has already ordered plates for a new boat, and we are in communication with the Herreshoffs about the same matter. We can make plates stiff and strong and thinner than anything vet made. "Take an armored cruiser. If we can give her more buoyancy and yet give her better armor, will it not be a gain?" We can do that. It is my opinion too that our new process will enable the Government to turn out much better shells than they do at present. Dr. Catling has already made arrangements with us to Luild his new gun from steel hardened by our process." Mr. Edison was enthus'astic throughout the interview, and was evidently fiim in the belief that he had made a great discovery.