Aeolian Company v Stoddard - [1915] HCA 15

THE AEOLIAN COMPANY STODDARD Palent-Application- - Want of novelty-Absence of invention-Prior user.

It was a matter of common knowledge that the perforations on note-sheets for player-pianos might be prolonged beyond the line of the commencement MELBOURNE, March 18,19.

of the next following perforation or perforations so as to avoid producing a staccato effect, and that by lengthening the perforations the duration of the musical notes corresponding therewith was extended. An application was made for a patent for improvements in note-sheets whereby it was proposed to prolong those perforations corresponding to such musical notes as were in harmony with the succeeding notes to such a length as to allow the strings of the particular notes struck to vibrate as long as the succeeding notes were in harmony with them.

Held, by the Court, that the application should be refused: By Griffith C.J., on the ground that there was no novelty; By Isaacs and Rich J.J., on the ground that there was no invention.

APPEAL from the Commissioner of Patents.

Charles Fuller Stoddard applied for a patent for Improve- ments in or relating to note-sheets for player-pianos and the

19 CLR 453

like," and the application was opposed by the Aeolian Co. on the H. C. grounds of want of novelty and prior publication. The Com- missioner of Patents having dismissed the opposition, the Aeolian Co. now appealed to the High Court.

The material facts are stated in the judgments hereunder. Mann, for the appellants. Sir William Irvine K.C. (with him Braham), for the respon- dent.

During argument reference was made to Terrell on Patents, 5th ed., pp. 158, 159; McGlashan v. Rabett 1; Linotype Co. Ltd. v. Mounsey 2.

GRIFFITH C.J. The subject matter of this alleged invention is "improvements in or relating to note-sheets for player-pianos and the like," that is, pneumatic sheets to be used on what are commonly called "pianolas." The principle of the pianola, as I understand it, is that for the mechanical pressure of the human finger upon the keys of a piano is substituted pneumatic pressure applied to the key desired to be struck. The manner in which the particular notes are selected is by passing over a proper apparatus a perforated sheet, SO that the pressure is allowed to pass through the perforations at the appropriate time SO as to depress the desired key. The duration of the depression to which the duration of the vibration of the string corresponds depends upon the length of the perforation-a longer perforation resulting in a longer vibration. For instance, a semibreve would be represented on the sheet by a long perforation and a semi- quaver by a correspondingly short perforation, and SO on. When that invention was first brought into operation, it was thought by the inventors that each perforation should be of a length corresponding exactly with what would be the result if the key had been struck by the human finger. But it was discovered later that this method produced…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aeolian Company v Stoddard

Details

AGLC: Aeolian Company v Stoddard [1915] HCA 15
Case: [1915] HCA 15
Decision Date: 19 March 1915

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Aeolian Company appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents. The appeal concerned an application by Charles Fuller Stoddard for a patent for "Improvements in or relating to note-sheets for player-pianos and the like." The Aeolian Company opposed the application on the grounds of want of novelty and prior publication.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether Stoddard's proposed improvements to note-sheets for player-pianos involved novelty and invention. Specifically, the court had to determine if the concept of prolonging perforations in note-sheets to extend the duration of musical notes, particularly when those notes were in harmony with succeeding notes, constituted a patentable invention.

The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the application for a patent should be refused. Griffith C.J. found that there was no novelty in the proposed improvement, as the principle of prolonging perforations to extend note duration was already known and applied in the ordinary way. Isaacs and Rich JJ. found that there was no invention involved. They reasoned that if the proposed means of prolonging perforations would have occurred to a skilled person in the field, informed of the desired musical effect but without the exercise of invention, then it was not patentable. The Court concluded that the applicant's proposal was merely an application of an old contrivance in the ordinary way to an analogous subject without any novelty in the mode of application, and therefore not a valid subject matter for a patent.

Orders