Society of Motion Picture Engineers : incorporation and by-laws (1925)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Color Photography Patents — Kelleij 159 legally to Cox's provisional specification, anticipates Cox by five months. I was saved from an interference in the patent office by the fact that m}" complete patent specification was signed and mailed to the patent office on the same day that Cox filed his provisional specification in England. This is the first patent taken out on placing the two images on ordinary single coated cine film, and that is the direction in which every one is working today. The results shown by Mr. Kelley last night were on single coated film, and it is the direction in which I have worked from the start, and the reason more has not been heard of it is that I wouldn't put out a process until it was working smoothly and property, and it takes time to perfect the details in these processes. There are two or three other interesting points. Fox took out two patents at about the same time that I took out the patent on single coated film in which he suggested putting the images on one film. One of Fox's patent specifications was filed about one week before my application went in, so that it gave Fox a certain advantage in the Patent Office. The Patent Office should have declared an interference, because we made claims that interfered, and the Office issued patents to both of us. That was where Fox suggested vanadium chloride as a mordant for the dj^e image, and it didn't work because he used a toning solution which was iron and vanadium and put a red dye image in afterward. Almost immediately he discovered it would not work because when he put the red image on the top of the green image, the vanadium in the green image took up the red dye as well as the other image, so that he got a black and red image. Since his claim was for the red and green image which he could not produce, it would not work, and he didn't then prosecute the application but filed another some months after in which he showed how to overcome that difficulty bj^ making a blue image instead of a green one, so that there is some confusion there. I call attention to this question because of the confusion which arises in the law with respect to dates. Here is a case in which an apparently parent patent is not really a parent patent. With respect to the transfer processes, the Technicolor people have been using such a process, and it is interesting in that the original dye transfer process from relief prints a process of Bartlett and Sanger-Shepherd, made prints on paper which had the defect that the dye color spread in the gelatin to which the dye was trans