Home/U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York/Herzog v. New York Telephone Co.

Herzog v. New York Telephone Co.

172 F. 425, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5707
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedFebruary 12, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 F. 425 (Herzog v. New York Telephone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herzog v. New York Telephone Co., 172 F. 425, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5707 (circtsdny 1909).

Opinion

HAZEL, District Judge.

The patent upon which this action is based is for a useful improvement in electric signaling apparatus and circuits; infringement being charged of claims 11, 12, 13, 19, and 20. The patent No. 628,464 was granted July 11, 1899, to Felix Benedict Herzog on an application filed with the Commissioner of Patents on October 25, 1884. The claims in controversy relate to an arrangement of the' circuits and apparatus for attracting attention, or a method of electric signaling or calling and then transmitting a message over the line from a so-called latent signal transmitter with which the signaling instrument is functionally related. The subject of the patent was commonly known by the designation of the “telésome system,” and about a decade or so ago it was extensively used in rooms or apartments of guests at prominent hotels to transmit to the clerk of the hotel or to the central office by means of the latent signal instrument the wishes or requests for service of the guests. When the signaling feature of the instrument was operated, the message was automatically transmitted to the central office, not at the precise timo when the signal was set .by the guest, but subsequently, when the operator at the central office released it. Upon this point the specification says:

“The apparatus retains the signal as set until it is released directly or indirectly from a distant point by the person who is to receive the signal at the moment he is ready for it, when the signal is automatically transmitted to such receiver. These instruments being capable of being set so as to transmit alterable'signals or combinations of signals enable the sender to convey any desired information to the receiver, the time of receiving such signai, however, being entirely under the control of the receiver.”

[426]*426A reproduction of the device as shown in the drawing attached to the patent in its normal condition follows:

[427]*427

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

Related

Bierly v. Happoldt
201 F.2d 955 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1953)
Lindley v. Shepherd
24 F.2d 606 (D.C. Circuit, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 F. 425, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herzog-v-new-york-telephone-co-circtsdny-1909.