1894 Reports of Patent Design and Trade Mark Cases  
I up of infringing parts only ordered. 10 This ioas an action for infringement 0.1 a patent for phonographs. ..4. large number of claims were made by the Specification, Claim 1 being" in a phone-" graph attaching both the recording point and the reproducing point to the same " diaphragm, means being provided whereby either of the points may be brouqht " into operative position 01~the surface of the phonoqram:" Many of the claims 15 were subsidiary. In a phonograph, at one stage, a single
more » ... ge, a single diaphragm was used with a single tool or point for recording and reproducinq, Later, two diaphragms uiere used ioith separate recording and reproducingpoints, and a floating weight was applied to give the proper pressure to the reproducinq point. The present Patentee discovered that the floaiitu) 'weight might also be applied to the 20 recording point and so allow the use of a single diaphraqm with both the point» on it. The Defendants admitted the general utility of the invention and infringement, but they contended that the first claim was a claim for a principle and was too wide, and toas not novel, and that certain of the subsidiary clai-ms were inualidfor ioant of subject-matter, uiilits] and novelty. 25 Held on the evidence that the subsidiary claims were novel in their applications to the phonograph and contributed to the general improvement of the machine, and that they ioere valid; that the first claim claimed a monopolu of every form of phonoqraph. in sohich. the tioo points were attached to one diaphragm so that either point could be brought into operation, that it ioas 30 not a claim for a principle, b1JJt for a particular arrangement, and was novel and valid. The Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal varied the order by limiting the order for delivery tttp to the infringing parts of the 'machines only, but otherwise agreed with Wright,
doi:10.1093/rpc/11.20.389 fatcat:vwiaajz73nfe5i223m47ei6uyu