Original Synchronar Patent.

[jayh]

1. An electronic timepiece comprising means for generating electrical pulses at a constant predetermined frequency, means for supplying power to said generating means, means for counting said pulses and for producing a plurality of electrical time outputs corresponding to at least hours and minutes, digital readout means for producing a visual display of selected said outputs from said counting means, and control means for selecting between repetitive twelve hour and twenty-four hour counts from the same said counting means for display on the same readout means.

That claim seems vulnerable to 'prior art', among other things it does not specify a watch format. Digital electronic quartz clocks had been around for decades in the military, radio stations, etc.

As far as multiple conflicting patents go, this is common in new areas of technology. Typically the details get sorted out in court, though the exact way the decisions will fall is hard to predict.

Inventors often make broad claims, which can weaken their patent because it increases the liklihood of a prior art challenge, or occasionally will be struck down because the claim is simply too broad (the Wright brothers' patent on airplanes fell to this.... though technically they were forced to cross-license, so the actual invalidation trial did not occur).

Just because a patent is granted does NOT mean that the claims will hold. the Patent Office is notorious for missing conflicts, granting patents on things that cannot work, and in general letting stuff go through that will get quickly thrown out. Overly broad claims are still very much with us, the BT patent on web linking (which has not done well in the courts), the Monsanto genetically modified cotton claim, and drug maker patents on genes of completely unknown function are simply so broad as to be harmful to the competitive business climate. But it's variable. A claim that would be thrown out of one court might have been strictly enforced in another one.

[The Time Computer]

Gee, it seems I have stepped on a hornet?s nest here. I can?t really understand what purpose some folks in this forum are serving this subject. I am pretty sure the subject was ?who invented the first digital watch? and that the watch being discussed is the watch that we all admire and are currently collecting? In my initial post I clearly stated that I was not including any type of Jump-Hour timepiece in my research but if those of you whom wish to accept this technology as part of the classification of wrist-watches that fuel our desires to collect then you are welcome. I am not with you on this one and it's my opinion that these are not Digital Wrist-Watches by definition, nor do I have any appreciation for their part in history. Although some are cool as hell, like the Golf Ball watch the Jump-Hour didn't take much imagination, I think even my stupid self could have thought of that one.

In an effort for some to discredit either myself and or the facts, this issue has been spun so far that we somehow are now looking at a mechanical device that converts a standard pocket watch so it displays the time by rotating the numbers on a disc so they align with a fixed pointer in a window. My god, isn?t this the exact opposite of the typical watch were the hands point to a number, and how could this possibly relate to the subject matter here? In retrospect, I would also think most would know that there were clocks and devices that existed with some of the technology in this discussion prior to the digital wrist-watches invented but there just is no comparison!

Others seem to want to redefine Webster?s dictionary as we go by trying to classify words so as to leave room for personal interpretation. Digital is Digital, a Wrist is a Wrist, and a Watch is a Watch. Furthermore a Digital Wrist?Watch is, well,???.I already explained this previously so please go back and read carefully what I posted earlier and try to understand what is said. You will see no personal opinions or assumptions just documented facts!

One must understand that without the Patent Process to document the invention for the inventor there would be nothing to prevent others from taking credit. One just can?t take credit for a previous invention based on assumptions that the initial invention actually had to be manufactured or that improvements to the initial invention gives rights to the initial claim. Did the inventor of the ?Mouse Trap? actually catch a mouse in his trap BEFORE he conceived it, of coarse not. In fact, we have no proof he initially caught a mouse at all. Also he or others most likely improved it many times before it actually was produced. Additionally, if after market research suggests an invention not to be feasible then it may never be produced. In most cases it?s the improvements that make an invention feasible to manufacture and market.

And finally, some 36 years have gone by without any proof that anyone has contested or challenged the inventions I mentioned previously. Nor do I see any evidence that the Patent office missed anything in these cases. If there was any litigation in any of these cases they certainly would be solved by now and any claims to these inventions would be revised.

For those that can?t for some reason accept whom, where and when the first digital watch was invented then nothing in all these posts will ever change your mind. I didn?t somehow make all this up, I just supplied you all with the information that took me a lot of time to gather. It?s certainly your right to either accept it or not but before you challenge the facts please don?t do it with opinions unless you state it as opinion and not contrary to fact. Take the initiative that others and myself have taken to find the facts.

If your thinking I am just saying all this to defend my dear friend Mr. Bergey or because of my passion for the Pulsar Watch then you are wrong. Anyone who really knows me will tell you I tell it just as it is! Also, they will tell you if you ask me what the time is ????I will tell you how to build a watch........ because I am thorough! If your trying to make an ass of me well, I can do that quite well all by myself, thank you!

Regards,
The Time Computer

[jayh]

Gee, it seems I have stepped on a hornet’s nest here. I can’t really understand what purpose some folks in this forum are serving this subject.

I hope my post was not misinterpreted. I was discussing the vagaries of patent law in the real world, not necessarily disputing your points.

[ledwatch]

TC, the reason I put that post on about the first digital was just for interest and to lighten the forum, my tongue was well and truly in my cheek, not for any reasons to ''discredit people and or the facts'', read my post and turn on your sense of humour!!

Im in the Pulsar department, thats why I have spent tens of thousands of $$ collecting Pulsar LED watches....

[The Time Computer]

jayh and ledwatch,

Much appreciated and sorry if I took your comments to hart!

After "Digitizer" nipped me in the heels on the way out the door I got defensive. I would hope in the future this forum doesn't get so personal, it seems to be the best format for a forum I have seen so far!

Regards,
The Time Computer

[fronzelneekburm]

This reminds me somehow of the fight beween people claiming that the german inventor Philip Reis had invented the phone far earlier than Alexander Graham Bell, but was never accepted as he didn?t file a patent.

Since 2002 Antonio Meucci is officially the inventor of the phone (barely anyone knows him), as he was the first who actually ever built a phone.


If you?d ask me who invented the phone I?d say "I don?t know!" to keep things simple.

[Michael Lauterbach]

Hi again,

Fact 1: a (mechanical) Jump-Hour watch is a "Digital Watch" !

Fact 2: a Tuning-Fork watch is an "Electronic Watch"

Fact 3: a LED watch is a "Solid-State Watch"

Fact 4: a LCD watch is a "Solid-State Watch"

Fact 5: a Nixie-Tube clock is a "Solid State" clock (but not wrist watch)

Fact 6: a Filament clock is a "Solid State" clock (but not wrist watch)

Fact 7: Solid State clocks have been there long before the solid state wrist watch was released.

Fact 6: a Quartz watch with hands of course is a "Quartz Watch"

Fact 7: Quartz watches and electronic watches with hands or mechanical digital display have been there long before the Solid State wrist watch.

Fact 8: ANY Quartz watch with electronic display (without moving parts) is a "Solid-State Watch"- That could be a LCD (either dynamic scattering or field effect), a LED or even a Filament watch (I have never seen a filament wrist watch, but that doesn't mean something)!

Conclusion 1: Neither the Hamilton LED, nor the Synchronar were the first Digital Watches!

Conclusion 2: Neither the Hamilton LED, nor the Synchronar were the first Quartz Watches!

Conclusion 3: By patent documentation the Hamilton LED, and not the Synchronar was the first Solid-State Watch!

Conclusion 4: By patent documentation the Hamilton LED, and not the LCD was the first Solid-State Watch (however the LCD followed only a few months later- not years!)

Note 1: there have been numerous inventions without a valid patent!!!- means there must not necessarily be a valid patent in order to accept an invention.

Note 2: in order to proof that an invention was made, the invention had to be shown to the public at a well known fair (e.g. the world's biggest watch fair- the Basle Fair) or to the press.

Note 3: it is inadequate to claim that an invention has been made without a valid patent or at least a patent filed, IF the inventor can't proof that a working prototype has been shown to the public or journalists at that specific time. What happened in ones private chamber is NOT a proof for an invention. However it still can be a "creation"

I have travelled many years from one patent office to another (long before online search was available) and I travelled from museums to libraries (long before I had a computer) and visited many watch makers and guys of that LED era. I could NOT find any documentation for a "solid state wrist watch" that was released or shown to public or press or has been patented before the Hamilton LED !!!!

So, now its up to you guys to do some research (it is much easier today with the help of the internet and computer). Go for it! Things (and facts) can be changed!

Michael Lauterbach
Germany
BTW: when I said "Dennis" in my previous mail, I meant Mr. Time Computer (I'm still not used to internet conventions and still call people by their names)

[Dig-it-all]

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT! - Well put Mr. Lauterbach.

[dhuitt]

Watchismo has a Nixie Tube WATCH.

[Michael Lauterbach]

Hi,

Yes, but that Nixie-Tube watch was built in the late 90s and as far as I know it is still built today. There already have been some watches on eBay sold by the maker himself. There has been no such watch in or before the 70s.

As for a Filament watch. It doesn't need a transformer for the high voltage that Nixie-Tubes use, but a Filament-Display, being similar to a light bulb, still needs vacuum tubes. I don't think that is practical for a wrist watch. Look at the Nixie-Tube watch! The current that a Filament-Display needs exceeds by far a LED display.

Michael Lauterbach

[fronzelneekburm]

I was always wondering why there is no VFD watch. Probably took too much energy, eh?

But would probably look cool(I imagine a blue VFD...).

[jayh]

Well, here is a crt oscilloscope pocket watch:

http://www.cathodecorner.com/sc60.html

[DragonFly2]

The main reason there are no VFD wrist watches is that currently available displays from the major VFD manufacturers are too large,the cost and the filament current.
I have spoken to some of the major manufacturers and although smaller displays existed in the past they are now obsolete. The other difficulty is the filement current taken by vfd's, however there was a low curent filament display used in Casio and other calculators back in the 70's/80's.Remember those pale blue or green display calculators from that era.
So technicaly possible (given the now superior battery technology) but no display availability.Shame, would be quite nice if the right display came along, especially when you consider that vfd's have a wide range of display colour posibilities.

[Dig-it-all]

That's amazing - it was over TWO YEARS since this thread was last replied to. Blimey! :wink:

[RaWatch]

Mr. Riehl wrote of his early work,

"In August 1967, RCA issued preliminary specifications for and offered prototypes of a new type of microcircuit calls COSMOS. I immediately ordered the prototype circuits and began construction of a digital watch in my basement....By late 1967 I had purchased the digital display for this watch from Pinlites company. These were 1/4 inch high ceramic cubes with 8 wires out the back side......What I believe to be the first digital watch ever constructed was put together in March 1968. The time keeping reference was a piezoelectric tuning form at 1024 hertz made by Bramco of Piqua , Ohio. It was 1/4 inch square by 1 inch long. The voltage supply was 5-6 volts. Thus it is a curious fact that the first digital electronic watch was neither LCD, LED, or Quartz......"

[retroleds]

An earlier(first?) non-mechanical digital watch was fully desribed in A.Barbella's patent 3,333,410 , filed 4/2/1965. HE describes the oscillator, divider circuit, feature for compensating for leap years and other flucuation in time. He even suggests the use of a quartz crystal, but wisely did not limit himself. On discussions where LEDs are postured as being superior to some guys idea of hooking up a bunch of lights for a display, IMO there is no difference: your LED really is just a bunch of little lights....they just SEEM magical because they are so small and compact. :wink:

[Synchroserious]

Sounds great on paper, but were talking about things that worked,existed and were then manufactured.

[RaWatch]

The patent that you cite appears to be for a clock, not a watch.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3333410.pdf

This device was filed in 1965. I am curious if any examples were actully built - as clocks or watches.

Mr. Riehl described a watch he built in 1967. I gather he did not patent this watch. I think he might have a claim for CONSTRUCTING the first electronic digital watch, not for being the first to file a patent for one.