Hazeltine Corporation v. AH Grebe & Co.

21 F.2d 643, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1448
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedJune 20, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 21 F.2d 643 (Hazeltine Corporation v. AH Grebe & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hazeltine Corporation v. AH Grebe & Co., 21 F.2d 643, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1448 (E.D.N.Y. 1927).

Opinion

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

These two actions, brought by plaintiffs, Hazeltine Corporation (the owner of the patents) and Independent Radio Manufacturers, Inc. (the exclusive licensee), charge defendant, A. H. Grebe & Co., Inc., with -inf ringement of the Hazeltine neutrodyne patents, No. 1,489,228, granted April 1, 1924, and No. 1,533,858, granted April 14,1925.

Plaintiffs charge that the so-called “synchrophase” radio receiver, manufactured and sold by defendant since July, 1924, embodies the Hazeltine neutrodyne invention, and is an infringement of claim 1 of patent No. 1,-489,228, and of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, and 17 of patent No. 1,533,858.

Claim 1 of patent No. 1,489,228 reads as follows:

“An electric circuit arrangement for neutralizing capacity coupling between the grid and plate circuits of an audion, due to the capacity between the grid and plate electrodes, comprising a coil connected between one of these electrodes and the filament system and an auxiliary coil and a neutralizing capacity connected in series between the other of these electrodes and the filament system, said auxiliary coil being coupled electromagnetieally to the first coil and a coeffieient of coupling substantially equal to unity and having a ratio of turns thereto equal to the ratio of the coupling capacity to the neutralizing capacity.”

Claim 1 of patent No. 1,533,858 reads as follows:

“The method of neutralizing capacity coupling between the grid and plate circuits of an audion having a transformer in the plate circuit which consists in cap'acitively coupling the grid of said audion and a secondary of said transformer to cause equal capacity currents to flow to and from the grid whereby such current is prevented from flowing between the grid and the filament system.”

Claim 2, patent No. 1,533,858:

“An electric circuit arrangement for neutralizing capacity coupling between the grid and plate circuits of an audion having a transformer in the plate circuit thereof, comprising means for eapaeitively coupling the grid of said audion and a secondary of said transformer whereby equal capacity currents due to a variation in the potential of the plate of said audion are caused to flow to and from the grid thus preventing such current from flowing between the grid and filament system.”

Claim 3, patent No. 1,533,858:

“An electric circuit arrangement for neutralizing capacity coupling between the grid and plate circuits of an audion due to the capacity between the grid and plate electrodes, comprising a coil connected between the plate and the filament system, and an auxiliary coil and a neutralizing capacity connected in series between the grid and the filament system, said auxiliary eoil being closely coupled electromagnetieally to the first coil and having a ratio of turns thereto equal to the ratio of the coupling capacity to the neutralizing capacity.”

Claim 5, patent No. 1,533,858:

“An electric circuit arrangement for neutralizing capacity coupling between the grid and plate circuits of an audion due to the capacity between the grid and plate electrodes, comprising a eoil connected between the plate and the filament system, and an auxiliary eoil and a neutralizing capacity connected in series between the grid and the filament system, said coils and said neutralizing capacity being so proportioned that variations in plate potential cause equal currents to flow through the coupling capacity and through the neutralizing capacity and prevent such current from flowing between the grid and the filament system.”

Claim 9, patent No. 1,533,858:

“In a multistage amplifier, including in each stage an audion and an output transformer having a coil electromagnetieally coupled to the primary of said transformer, and a capacity in each stage connected in series with said eoil between the grid and the filament system of the audion in that stage, said filament system comprising all points, having substantially the same alternating current potential as the filament.” ,

Claim 12, patent No. 1,533,858:

“In a multistage amplifier, including an output transformer having a primary, and an audion in each stage, means for neutralizing the capacity coupling between the grid circuit and the plate circuit of each audion, comprising a capacity connected between the grid of the audion in each stage and a coil coupled to the primary.of said output transformer of that stage.”

Claim 13, patent No. 1,533,858:

“In a multistage audion amplifier, including an audion in each stage, means for neutralizing the capacity coupling between the grid and the plate circuit of each audion com *645 prising a capacity connected between the grid of each andion and a point in the plate circuit of said andion of opposite alternating current polarity to that of the plate.”

Claim 17, patent No. 1,533,858:

“A multistage audion amplifier, comprising an audion in each stage, means for neutralizing the capacity coupling between the grid and plate circuits of each audion, and means for preventing at all frequencies substantial coupling between any two stages thereof, except for the conductive coupling on which the amplifying action of the audion depends.”

The defendant contends that claim 1 of patent 1,489,228 is invalid because it embodies the principles of the Rice patent, 1,-334,118, and the Armstrong patent, 890,593. The subject-matter of the first patent in suit is a special application of the auxiliary neutralizing circuit to neutralizing the capacity coupling between the grid circuit and the plate circuit of an audion, characterized by the fact that the neutralizing coil is coupled to the coil in the neutralized circuit with a coefficient of coupling substantially equal to unity.

The Riee patent, 1,334,118, has for its object the avoidance of the undesired production of oscillatory currents between grid and plate circuit. In order to accomplish this result, Riee proposed to neutralize the electromagnetic coupling by a second electromagnetic coupling in the opposite direction. Rice never had the idea of complete neutralization. Rice’s purpose was to prevent oscillations in a regenerative amplifying receiver, whereas Iiazeltine’s idea was to eliminate all the regenerative or feedback effect between the plate and the grid circuit of an audion. In other words, Rice intended to avoid oscillation, but his receiver still remains a regenerative receiver, giving inferior selectivity and tone quality, and producing howls and squeals during the process of adjustment from one broadcasting station to another. Hazeltine, by providing close coupling between the coils in unequal turns, produced permanent neutralization for all frequency, a result that neither Riee nor the pri- or art disclosed.

Judge Thacher in Hazeltine Corporation et al. v. Electric Service Engineering Corporation, 18 F.(2d) 662, decided: “Rice employed a fixed ratio of equal capacities and equal turns, and arranged his coils with loose coupling.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

John C. Rodriguez v. R. Madden
S.D. California, 2022
Matter of the Application of Julian Rogoff
261 F.2d 601 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1958)
In re Rogoff
261 F.2d 601 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1958)
Moss v. Patterson-Ballagh Corp.
89 F. Supp. 619 (S.D. California, 1950)
Robins v. Wettlaufer
81 F.2d 882 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1936)
Technidyne Corp. v. McPhilben-Keator, Inc.
1 F. Supp. 423 (E.D. New York, 1932)
Jones v. Freed-Eisemann Radio Corp.
48 F.2d 300 (E.D. New York, 1929)
Jones v. Walthal Electric Co.
48 F.2d 310 (E.D. New York, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 F.2d 643, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazeltine-corporation-v-ah-grebe-co-nyed-1927.