DOC.
568
JUNE
1918
595
568.
From
Anschütz and
Company
Neumühlen
near
Kiel,
21
June
1918
To Professor
Albert
Einstein,
Berlin W.
30,
5
Haberland St.
Esteemed
Professor,
In
receipt
of
your
letter
of
the 9th
inst.,
we
thank
you
for
your willingness
and
forward to
you
in
the
same
post transcriptions
of
the
patent
applications
we are
challenging,
as
well
as
the
complete
set
of
documents.[1] The
notification
by
the
Examination
Office,
and
the
decision
by Complaints
Department
I,
reveal
that
the material
we
have
presented
was
treated
altogether
superficially.
The
same was
the
case
for
our
oral
presentations
scheduled for
31
May.
They
culminated
in
the
argument
that
the
prominent
advance made
by
our
Patent
Specification 241,637
consists in the revelation of the
source
of
the
stabilizer
error
and
in
the
arrangement
of
the
ancillary gyroscopes
to
augment
the
oscillation
period
as an
axis
along
the
north-south
line.[2]
As
is
self-evident to
an
expert,
the
design
corresponds
thoroughly
in
its
mode
of
operation
to
the
familiar
Schlick
gyrostabilizer
for ships.[3]
Even
without the
reference
to
Föppl[4]
in
Pat.
241,637,
which at
the bottom
of
page
223 terms
the
Schlick
gyrostabilizer
as a
gyropendulum,
the
comparison
with
the
nautical
gyrostabilizer
of
gyrostabilization according
to
our
Patent
241,637
was generally
known
in
professional circles.
In
Föppl’s
book
(Vorlesungen
über
technische Mechanik
[Lectures on
Technical
Mechanics],
Volume
6)
which
we are
likewise
submitting
to
you
in
the
same
post,
the nautical
gyrostabilizer
is
treated
comprehensively.
The
explanations
on
pages
223
to
271
concern a
single gyroscope
with
a
vertical
axis,
thus the
arrangement
of
the
contested main
application.[5]
On
page
274 at
the
bottom,
Föppl
mentions
an
arrangement
that
resembles
figure
4 of
our
Patent
Specification
241,637.
We
concluded from
this that
an
expert
who
was
prompted
by
the
reference
on
page
1,
line
54
of
our
patent
specification
to
acquaint
himself with
Föppl’s
works
required
no
inventive
effort
to discover from
among
“all cases”
mentioned in
our
patent
specification
the
special
case
of
an
ancillary
gyroscope
with
a
vertical
axis. An inventive achievement would exist here
only
if
mechanisms
differing
in
principle
from those in
Patent
Specification 241,637 or,
in
the
case
of similar
operation,
if additional
special advantages were gained
over our
patent.
Neither
is
the
case,
and
even
the
alleged
greater
simplicity
does
not
exist,
for
through
the
described
arrangement
of
two
gyroscopes
according
to
our
patent,
the
stabilizer
error
is
completely
eliminated. The
third
gyroscope,
added for
practical
reasons
not
pertinent
here
(comp.
offprint
from
the
Lehrbuch für den Unterricht in
der
Previous Page Next Page