Æolian Co. v. Simpson-Crawford Co.

178 F. 826, 102 C.C.A. 274, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4569
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedApril 4, 1910
StatusPublished

This text of 178 F. 826 (Æolian Co. v. Simpson-Crawford Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Æolian Co. v. Simpson-Crawford Co., 178 F. 826, 102 C.C.A. 274, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4569 (2d Cir. 1910).

Opinion

NOYES, Circuit Judge.

The patentee states at the commencement of his specifications:

“My invention relates to that class of automatic musical instruments which are controlled by rolls of perforated paper; and the object of my invention is to provide compact, simple, and efficient pneumatic-actuating devices for pianos or similar instruments.”

In the instruments to which the patentee refers, a perforated music sheet passes over a board provided with a row of perforations which is called a “tracker-board.” When a perforation in the music sheet registers with a corresponding perforation in the tracker-board, a current of air flows through a passage connecting with that particular perforation and causes a striker to strike a corresponding string of the piano. The striking mechanism is called a “striker pneumatic.” The different notes are sounded in proper order and thus a tune is played.1

The feature of the invention of the patent to which attention is particularly directed in the first part of the specifications and which is covered by the first four claims relates to what is called in the defend[827]*827ant’s brief the “action” of an automatic musical instrument. The vacuum chamber, the primary valve steins, the main pneumatics, the tracker-board, and its connecting- passages are all elements of the invention described in these claims.

The claims in suit — ñ and 6 — -relate to a comparatively minor and quite distinct feature of the invention. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that the patent covers a principal invention — the “action” of the instrument — and the distinct, although subsidiary, invention of the claims in issue. These claims read as follows:

“5. In a musical instrument, tlie combination of pneumatically-actuated operating devices, a main shut-off valve, a spring-pressed, auxiliary bellows or pneumatic, a pressure-regulating valve controlled thereby, and an independent controlling-valve, substantially as described.
'“6. In a musical instrument, the combination of pneumatically-actuated operating devices, a main shut-off valve, 37, for cutting off: the wind-pressure when the instrument is not in use or the paper is being rerolled, and controlling-valves, 42 and 43, one of said controlling-valves being connected to and actuated by a spring-pressed, auxiliary bellows, 4(1, and the other of said controlling-valves being capable of an independent action to provide a direct connection between the pneumatic devices and main bellows when desired, substantially as described.”

The principal object which the patentee sought to accomplish by the invention of these claims is thus stated in the specifications:

“Pneumatic playing devices of that class to which my invention relates have heretofore ordinarily been directly connected to a bellows or pumping device for actuating the same. In practice I have, found that it is not desirable to connect devices of this character directly to the bellows, as it is impossible to maintain an exactly constant air pressure by the use of bellows, and any variation therein will produce variations in the action of the pneumatic playing devices which are directly connected thereto. This form of connection I have also found to be objectionable, as the different chords or notes which are produced require different amounts of wind and a direct connection between the pneumatic playing devices and the bellows for operating the same will not provide any reserved capacity for producing those notes or chords which require a considerable volume of air. To overcome these objections, i have combined pneumatic playing devices constructed according to my inveniion with a controlling-valve, which is connected to and actuated from a supplemental spring-pressed bellows or pneumatic. By means of this construction a uniform air pressure will be maintained and the spring-pressed bellows or pneumatic will form a supplemental reservoir, which will act automatically to supply the wind-pressure required to produce heavy chords or notes.”

From this statement it will be observed that the patentee was endeavoring to obviate the difficulties arising when the pumping bellows was directly connected with the playing device. These difficulties were twofold:

(1) A uniform and constant air pressure could not be obtained by the use of foot bellows, and this variation in the pressure would produce variations in the action of the playing device.

(2) A reserved supply of air could not be obtained for notes and chords requiring an unusual volume.

To obviate these difficulties the patentee provided: (a) “A controlling-valve.” (b) “A supplemental spring-pressed bellows or pneumatic.”

The latter element, in order to fulfil the purposes stated in the patent, had two functions: (a) To be connected to and actuate the controlling-valve. “By means of this connection a uniform air pressure will be [828]*828obtained.” (b) To “form a supplemental reservoir which will act automatically to supply the wind-pressure required to produce heavy chords or notes.” Or, as stated in another part of the specification:

“By means of this construction it win be seen that the spring-pressed bellows, 48, will act as a regulating device to control the suction or pressure exerted by the main bellows, and will also form a reservoir or reinforcing device for producing chords or notes requiring an unusual volume of wind.”

The operation of the supplementary bellows is shown in the following illustration taken from the defendant’s brief;

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 F. 826, 102 C.C.A. 274, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olian-co-v-simpson-crawford-co-ca2-1910.