# Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company (185 U.S. 403)/Dissent White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglass White
United States Supreme Court
185 U.S. 403
Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company
Argued: January 22, 23, 1901. --- Decided: for reargument March 18, 1901
Mr. Justice White, with whom concurs Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Brewer, dissenting:
To elucidate the reasons which constrain me to dissent, it is deemed essential to give a mere outline of the processes by which iron and steel were made prior to June 4, 1889, when the patent in suit was issued, in so far as such processes in some aspects concern the manufacture of steel by what is known as the Bessemer method, to which the court now declares the patent in suit solely relates.
Into the stack of a smelting furnace iron ore, with suitable fluxing material and fuel, was introduced. In the operation of the furnace the ore was reduced to a metallic state by the oxidizing action of carbon or gas containing carbon. This metallic iron melted in the lower part of the furnace, taking up a proportion of carbon and other ingredients, dropping to the bottom of the hearth as molten pig iron. The earthy impurities combined with the flux, and were also melted and descended into the hearth, resting upon the top of the molten metal. The molten metal was drawn from the hearth from time to time by tapping, and the molten impurities, combined with the flux, forming a cinder, were also drawn from the hearth at a higher level. As the molten iron was tapped it was run out into molds, and came to be known as pig iron or pigs. These pigs were not of uniform composition, because of the varying quantity of the constituents contained in the ore and the chemical changes wrought by irregularities incidental to the operation of the furnace.
To make foundry castings, pigs were selected, broken up, charged into a cupola furnace, reduced to a molten state, and the liquid was drawn off into a receiving ladle. From this the quantity desired was tipped into a smaller vessel known as a casting ladle, and was poured into the molds. Where more than one cupola furnace was employed, each was tapped, and the metal poured through a groove into a receiving ladle, common to the furnaces, where it was held for use, and drawn as required into a advantages may be obtained by casting already mentioned.
In 1855 and 1856 Sir Henry Bessmer obtained various patents covering his discovery for producing malleable iron and steel by forcing currents of air through molten iron. The appliance described was a refractory lined vessel, called by Bessmer a converting vessel, which came to be designated as the converter or the vessel. Without going into detail, it suffices to say that, for various reasons, the method of Sir Henry Bessemer proved not to be as advantageous as had been expected. Indeed, it was not until Mushet patented a method of decarbonizing iron by completely blowing it and adding ferromanganese or speigel-eisen in a molten state that the difficulty of producing steel was solved and the process of Sir Henry Bessemer was rendered practical. Despite, however, the fact that Mushet's discovery was of immense value and rendered Bessemer's conceptions a commercial success, Mushet allowed his patent right to lapse through neglect to pay the requisite fees in the third year; and (to quote the language of the author of the article on Iron, contained in Encyclopoedia Britannica, 9th ed. vol. 13, p. 342) 'in consequence his name is all but forgotten in connection with his improvement on Bessemer's own process, the combination being ordinarily termed 'Bessemerizing."
In the manufacture of steel by the Bessemer-Mushet process two methods were followed, one termed the indirect, the other the direct. In the indirect, pigs were charged into a reverbatory furnace, for which, at a later date, a cupola furnace was substituted. In such furnace the pigs were melted and run into ladles or reservoirs, and thence the molten iron was conveyed to the converter for the necessary treatment. Without attempting to give accurately the variations in the size and consequent capacity of cupola furnaces and converters, it is unquestioned that the quantity of molten metal which could be drawn at a single tapping from the cupola was usually not adequate to supply a full charge to the converter. It followed that ordinarily more than one cupola furnace was used to supply a converter, and that the tappings from such cupolas were drawn into a common reservoir or ladle, and there stored until required to be carried to the converter. Indeed, irrespective of the necessity of storing the tappings, growing out of the difference between the capacities of the vessels in question, such storage was additionally required in order that the operation might be continuous, in case of delay resulting from accident to the converter or otherwise.
In the direct process the capacity of blast furnaces greatly exceeded that of cupola furnaces. The molten iron was tapped directly from the blast furnace into a number of receiving reservoirs or ladles, and carried for treatment to the converter.
On October 31, 1888, William R. Jones made application for two letters patent, one stated to be for a new and useful improvement in apparatus 'for mixing molten pig metal,' the other for a process declared to be 'a new and useful improvement in methods of mixing molten pig metal.' The application for the first or apparatus patent was several times rejected, and, after various amendments, was finally allowed. This patent may be dismissed from view, as it is not involved in this controversy. The first application for the process patent-which is the patent under consideration in this case-was rejected. Thereupon a new and amended application was presented. This was also rejected, when a second amendment was made, and the application was finally allowed.
As the opinion of the court has reproduced the specifications and claims of the patent, it is unnecessary to repeat them in detail, and therefore a mere outline of them is now given. The patent was entitled 'Method of Mixing Molten Pig Metal.' The primary object of the invention was stated to be 'to provide means for rendering the product of steel works uniform in chemical composition.' It was also stated that: 'My invention is not limited to its use in connection with converters, since similar advantages may be obtained by casting the metal from the mixing vessels into pigs for use in converters, puddling furnaces, or for any other uses to which pig iron may be put in the art.' It was further stated that: 'My invention may be practised with a variety of forms of apparatus,-for example, by merely receiving in a charging ladle a number of small portions of metal taken from several ladles or receiving vessels containing crude metal obtained at different times or from different furnaces, mixing being performed merely by the act of pouring into the charging ladle, and other like means may be employed.'
It was, however, declared that it was preferable to use the device covered by the apparatus patent, and a description of the same was set out. That device may be thus described: It consisted of a covered tilting tank of large size, 'holding, say, 100 tons of metal [more or less],' lined so as 'to retain the heat of the molten contents of the vessel and to prevent chilling thereof,'with receiving and charging spouts, a gas-heating appliance contained in the discharging spout, and so constructed that, after being fully charged with molten metal, drawn from the furnaces into ladles and poured into the reservoir, as the metal was poured out for use a considerable residue would remain in the reservoir to mix with an incoming charge.
The patent embodied two claims which read as follows:
'1. In the art of refining iron directly from the smelting furnace, the process of equalizing the chemical composition of the crude metal by thoroughly commingling or mixing together the liquid metal charge and subsequently refining the mixed and equalized charge, substantially as and for the purposes described.
'2. In the art of mixing molten metal to secure uniformity of the same in its constituent parts preparatory to further treatment, the process of introducing into a mixing receptacle successive portions of molten metal ununiform in their nonmetallic constitutents (sulphur, silicon, etc.) removing portions only of the composite molten contents of the receptacle without entirely draining or emptying the same, and successively replenishing the receptacle with fresh ununiform additions, substantially as and for the purposes described.'
On December 2, 1895, the Carnegie Steel Company, Limited, which had acquired full title to the Jones patents, commenced the present suit against the Cambria Iron Company for an alleged infringement of the foregoing process patent. The defenses made by the answer were substantially a denial of infringement and an averment of want of patentable novelty.
After the evidence for the defendant was all in and several witnesses had been examined in rebuttal, the complainant, on March 30, 1897, stated 'that at the hearing of the cause he will urge infringement of the second claim only of the patent in suit.' At the close of all the evidence the complainant filed what is termed a 'petition for disclaimer,' praying that the court would receive in evidence a certified copy of a disclaimer of portions of the specifications, which on that day had been sent to the Patent Office for filing. The trial court admitted the disclaimer in evidence. The portions of the specifications covered by the disclaimer are printed in italics in the patent as reproduced in the opinion of the court. The disclaimer need not be further noticed at this time.
It was shown beyond question that in November, 1895, the defendant had erected at its works a reservoir of the capacity of about 300 tons, for the storage of molten metal drawn from its blast furnaces, the metal so stored being held in the reservoir for the purpose of treatment in the converters. This reservoir was described by a witness in the following condensed manner: 'It was cylindrical in shape, with slightly convex ends, and in turning [for the purpose of pouring out the metal] it revolves upon the center of the cylinder. It is supported upon cradles of rollers, and the motion is imparted to the reservoir by hydraulic cylinders.' As this cause, as already stated, does not involve the Jones apparatus patent, no question of infringement of the mechanical device embraced in such patent can possibly arise. In this reservoir the molten metal as tapped from the furnaces was stored continuously, and the reservoir was drawn upon with like continuity to supply molten metal for treatment in the converters. While it is not asserted that the use of the reservoir, as just stated, caused the metal stored therein to become uniform in its chemical constituents, it is conceded that the method pursued counteracted the inconvenience of sudden variations in the metal as drawn for converter purposes.
There is controversy, however, whether the defendant, in reservoiring its molten metal, irrespective of the supply and demand, intentionally retained in the reservoir a considerable residuum. From the view taken by me, however, it is unnecessary to pass on this contention, since the principles deemed by me applicable to the cause will be wholly unaffected, even if it be conceded that the defendant, in operating its reservoir, in filling it with molten metal, and in drawing the same off for use in the converter, designedly held in the reservoir a considerable residuum of molten metal in order that the metal which was subsequently charged into the reservoir might commingle with that retained.
The cause was decided by the circuit court in favor of the complainant. The court held that the second claim of the patent referred alone to metal direct from the blast furnace intended to be Bessemerized in a converter, and that the object was, not the obtaining, by mixing, a molten metal substantially uniform in its chemical constituents, but the avoidance of abrupt variations between the various charges supplied to the converter. The patent was construed as not contemplating the mixing of batches of metal; that is, the filling up of the apparatus and a drawing down to a 'residue' before replenishing. The gist of the Jones idea was stated to be 'the creation and maintenance of a great pool of metal between the blast furnaces and converters, through which all the incoming and outgoing metal must pass,' by which means abrupt variations were prevented, although neither a uniform molten metal nor a uniform product was thereby obtainable. Indeed, the court said: 'In Jones, uniformity is a nonessential-in fact, a nonattainable-attribute of product, and is a necessary nonsequence of material used.'
While the court found that reservoiring was well known in the art at the time the Jones patent was obtained, and that mixing necessarily resulted from such reservoiring, it held that the Jones method was patentable, because the reservoiring known to the art contemplated storage, and not the prevention of abrupt variations; that although a mixing of the metals was of course the inevitable result of the reservoiring, such fact did not preclude the validity of the Jones patent, because prior to its grant the mixing arising from reservoiring was incidental to storage, while under the Jones method the storage was incidental to the mixing. The court said:
'Now that mixing of some character took place in the ladle during these operations; that where it took place the resultant was a homogeneous average of all constituent ingredients contained,-are facts to gainsay which would be to question nature's laws; but the indisputable fact remains that such mixing was accidental, eccentric, and nonsystematic, and therefore not of a systematic, regular, functional type or for a systematic, functional purpose.'
A decree was entered reciting that the patent in question was valid as to the second claim thereof; that the defendant, 'by reason of the use of a certain method of mixing molten pig metal, as in the said complainant's bill set forth, has infringed the said recited letters patent as to the second claim thereof, and has violated the exclusive rights of the said complainant thereunder.' It was adjudged that recovery be had of the gains and profits made by the defendant and the damages sustained by complainant, and a master was appointed to ascertain the amount of such gains, profits, and damages. The defendant was, in general terms, enjoined from any further infringement of the second claim of the letters patent and of the exclusive rights of complainant thereunder.
An appeal was taken to the circuit court of appeals. That court held that the second claim of the patent did not cover the retention in reservoiring of a considerable residuum, even though the same was designated as a dominant pool, and if it did that the method was not patentable in view of the state of the art, and that the proceedings in the Patent Office demonstrated that this was in effect conceded by Jones. It was decided that the defendant had the right to reservoir its molten metal, and that its method of doing so did not infringe the patent. The court decided that the disclaimer was not warranted by the statute, but that in any event it was ineffective to alter the true meaning of the patent. Thereupon the decree of the circuit court was reversed.
This court now reverses the decree of the circuit court of appeals, adopts the views of the circuit court, and in effect affirms the decree of that court. The court expressly upholds the theory of a dominant pool, and decides that the Jones patent related, not to the obtaining of uniform molten metal by mixing in a reservoir, and a resultant uniform product, but solely to the procuring, by means of reservoiring, molten metal which would not abruptly vary in its chemical constituents when drawn from the reservoir for use in a converter. The opinion of this court now, as did that of the circuit court, expressly concedes that reservoiring of molten metal was well known in the art at the time the Jones patent was applied for, and that mixing was the inevitable result of such reservoiring; but it is decided that this fact did not operate to deprive the Jones method of novelty or to relieve the defendant from the charge of infringement.
My mind is unable to assent to the construction which the court affixes to the patent, and as it is conceded that the method used by the defendant does not infringe unless the patent has the import which the court has given to it, the reasons for my dissent would perhaps be most directly made manifest by stating what seems to me to be the true construction of the patent. Doing so, however, is for the moment pretermitted, for two reasons: 1. Because to my mind it seems that even if it be granted, arguendo, that the patent is susceptible of the construction which the court has placed upon it, on the face of the opinion, the conclusion reached is wrong; in other words, the opinion of the court to me seems self-destructive. 2. Because if the concession of the court be accepted, that reservoiring and mixing were well known in the art, then it follows, from a consideration of the record, that the patent, as construed by the court, was wanting in patentable novelty. That is to say, if the admissions of fact made in the opinion of the court are right, its conclusion is demonstrated by the record to be unsound.
Let me briefly advert to the opinions of this court and of the circuit court, to point out the reasons which constrain to the first proposition just stated. The circuit court concluded that the reservoiring of molten metal from cupola and blast furnaces for use in casting or in converters was well known to the art at the time the Jones patent was applied for. It also declared as follows: 'That mixing of some character took place in the ladle during these operations; that where it took place the resultant was a homogeneous average of all constituent ingredients contained,-are facts to gainsay which would be to question nature's laws.' But this was held not to establish that at the time the Jones method was patented that method as now construed was known to the art or had been anticipated, because, in the prior practice, the mixing 'was accidental, eccentric, and nonsystematic, and therefore not of a systematic, regular, functional type, or for a systematic, functional purpose;' that such mixing was incidental to storage, while in the Jones method storage was incidental to mixing. This court approvingly adopts and elaborately restates these views.
Now, my reason does not enable me to conceive how, consistently with the view of the prior state of the art as to mixing and reservoiring which is admitted, the conclusion as to the patentability of the Jones method as construed can be sustained.
It would seem to be beyond question that, as it is held that the mixing resulting from the storage as practised prior to the grant of the Jones patent was the resultant, as stated, of a well-known law of nature, it must follow that the qualifying words 'accidental, eccentric, nonsystematic, and functional type or purpose' could only relate to the conduct of the persons who practised the method prior to the Jones patent. This must be unless it can be said that a well-known law of nature was accidental, eccentric, nonsystematic, and nonfunctional. The qualifications, then, applying, not to the law of nature, but to the conduct of parties, the reasoning must come to this: Although the method attributed to the Jones patent was well known to the art at the time that patent was issued, and hence it was intrinsically wanting in patentable novelty, nevertheless such method must be held to have embodied invention because the well-known practice was carried out by individuals in a varying and irregular manner. But this is only to say that while the Jones method was old, it must be treated as new because of the conduct of individuals in applying the method and their intentions. And this reduces itself to the proposition that the Jones patent as construed covered the mere intention or mind of persons. The reasoning is equally applicable to the distinction which is asserted to exist between storing and the mixing incidental thereto, and mixing with incidental storage. The mere form of expression cannot create a distinction where none exists, or destroy a law of nature. As by me it cannot be conceived that various charges of molten metal can be stored in a common reservoir without resulting mixing, it follows necessarily, by the law of diffusion of fluids, the mixing is the secondary result arising from and created by the primary act of storage. It is impossible that the secondary force can be caused to become the first and creating power by a mere collocation of words. If, then, the distinction has significance, as of course it must have, since the court makes it the basis of its decision, it can only mean this, that those who practised the reservoiring of molten metal before the grant of the Jones patent mainly contemplated storage, and did not in their minds take into view the inevitable mixing which would arise therefrom by a law of nature; therefore, in the minds of the person so reservoiring, the storage was the primary, and the mixing the incidental, consequence. But, on the contrary, as those reservoiring metal after the Jones patent must be considered to have contemplated, first, the advantages resulting from mixing, therefore, in their minds, the mixing is the principal and the storage the accessory. But this is only again to say that while the Jones method was old it is to be treated as new because it covered the intention of those who stored metal for the purpose of use.
Aside from this, it seems to me the concession that the placing of molten metal in a reservoir for use as required was well known at the time the Jones patent was issued is inconsistent with the ruling now made, that the Jones patent validly embraced the retention in a reservoir of a mass of such metal, now described by the court as a dominant pool. The elementary import of the right to reservoir, as applied, not only to molten metal, but other fluids, is the storing of the fluid for use as required, and this implies the drawing off as desired, the replenishing at will, and the keeping of such residuum or reserve supply as may be deemed best. It may not be doubted that to say that one who stores fluid for use is obliged, whenever he draws any off, to draw all off before replenishing, is to say that such party has not the right to reservoir. If it be meant by the court that the right to reservoir carries with it the right to draw off or to retain at will, unless the person reservoiring intends to retain a residuum for a particular purpose, the reasoning redeces itself again to the proposition that the Jones patent covers, not the process described therein, but the mind and intention of the individual who may exercise the right to reservoir molten metal. That is to say, my reason does not enable me to understand how the right to reservoir can be admitted, and yet such right be at once denied by a construction of the patent which imposes qualifications on the right to reservoir, which, in effect, renders its beneficial exercise impossible. In other words, I fail to see how the exclusive right can be conferred to do the very thing which the court admits was well known at the time the patent to Jones was issued. The conflict which my mind perceives between the facts admitted upon the face of the opinion and its conclusion is expressly pointed out by the opinion itself, where it is said: 'If the contents of the mixer used by the defendant were allowed habitually to become empty in carrying out its process there would be no infringement.' That is, if in the use of its reservoir the defendant did not habitually retain a residuum there would be no infringement. But the admission that the occasional use of a residue would be no infringement concedes that the patent did not embrace the right to use a residue, for if it was covered by the patent it would be an infringement to avail of it even occasionally. Thus it must follow that the exclusive right which the court upholds is expressly declared to relate, not to the process, but to the mere habit of the defendant.
For the purpose of demonstrating the second proposition previously adverted to, let me now recur to the state of the art as depicted by the record, in order to point out that even if the Jones patent embodied the process which the court now attributes to it, that process was wanting in patentable novelty. In doing this, for convenience, the subject is thus divided: (a) The use of molten metal drawn from cupolas for foundry purposes, before the invention of Bessemer, as well as the foundry practice and the Bessemerizing practice by the indirect process after such invention and before the grant of the Jones patent; (b) the direct process of making steel from blast-furnace metal prior to the grant of the Jones patent.
Foundry and Indirect Bessemer Practice Before the Grant of the Jones Patent.
1. The Whitney-Car-Wheel Practice: At the Whitney car-wheel works in Philadelphia, commencing in 1847, remelted pig metal from several cupola furnaces was tapped at intervals into a large reservoir ladle having a capacity of from twelve to fifteen tons. From this the molten metal was poured into charging ladles having a capacity of but 600 pounds. A considerable residue was always maintained in the reservoir ladle. The principal purpose, as testified to by witnesses having personal knowledge of the subject, was to secure, as a consequence of the mixing resulting from the reservoiring, the production of a practically uniform product. Excerpts from the testimony of John R. Whitney contain a clear statement on the subject:
'When the [large] ladle was nearly full we began to pour from it into the smaller ladles, each one of which held enough for one wheel. If it was an ordinary size wheel it held enough for one wheel, and if the wheels were smaller ones it held enough for two or three. As that drew the molten iron from the ladle, and the iron continued to melt, the ladle was constantly being filled from the cupola, and it was kept full until all the iron charged in the three cupolas was melted and the bottoms dropped. Then the iron was continued to be poured out of the large ladle until it was all used, those two methods making the uniform mixture; that is, we mixed it in a solid state, first by our charges and then in the molten state in the large ladle.
'As the mixture [of selected iron] was charged into each cupola, as I have stated, it was made up of irons from various furnaces, some iron having one quality and some another. As it is melted in each cupola, it did not all melt at the same time, and if we had drawn it directly from the cupola into the small ladle from which we poured the wheels, one wheel might have been poured out of very hard iron, another wheel out of very soft iron, and so every shade between. There would have been no uniformity in our work. But by taking it from the three cupolas, all melting the same charges of iron, and collecting them in a molten state, the inequalities of melting were all overcome and a uniform product produced.'
2. The Wheeling Foundry Practice: Kirk on Founding of Metals, 1875, thus described a foundry practice (italics not in original): 'In melting iron I should recommend melting it hot, and as fast as possible. A quantity of molten iron should be kept in the cupola or in a large ladle, so as to give the different brands of iron a chance to mix. In most all the foundries at Wheeling, West Virginia, the cupolas are never stopped from the time the blast is put on until the bottom is dropped. A large ladle is set on trestles in front of the cupola, in such a manner that the iron can run into it from the cupola and be poured out into the smaller ladles at the same time. The iron is all run out of the cupola as fast as it is melted, and is mixed in a large ladle. I think this is a good way of mixing iron. See alloys.'
3. The Altoona Practice: At the Altoona wheel works of the Pennsylvania railroad, from 1871, the cupola metal was designedly stored and mixed. The early reservoir ladle, of seven tons' capacity, received the metal from two cupolas, and we thus described:
'A. The ladle turns on two trunnions, and has chains leading from these trunnions down to the hydraulic cylinder shown on the drawing, one chain being wound in one direction on one trunnion and other being would in the other direction on the other trunnion, and the two chains being connected at opposite ends of the piston rod.'
In describing the regular way of working each day the witness said (italics not in original):
'It the first place each cupola is charged with about forty tons of metal. We charged about forty tons in each cupola; then after we have this done we put the blast on and begin to melt, and as soon as ever the bed in the cupola is filled up with molten metal we tap it out into the receiving ladle or reservoir, which fills the reservoir about one-half full, then we stop the cupolas up again until the iron raises to the eyeholes, then they are tapped again, and this second tap generally fills the reservoir; then after the reservoir is full, we begin to pour the metal out into smaller ladles, then send it around to the molders for pouring into the wheel molds.
'The custom was to empty the receiving ladle about one half; then hold the remainder of iron in the reservoir until the cupolas were ready to be tapped again; and after the reservoir is full we start and pour out into the smaller ladles again. The receiving ladle at all times is kept about one-half full, and it is this full when we tap the metal into it from the cupola.'
In the London Engineering for 1877, describing the practice pursued at Altoona, when a ten-ton receiving ladle was used, it was said: 'It was found advisable to employ a ladle of so large a capacity, because by doing so a more complete mixture of the different irons is effected than would be the case if a smaller vessel were employed.'
And the methods of using cupola metal for foundry purposes above described were early applied to making Bessemer steel by the indirect process. The following excerpt from the testimony of a witness clearly states the subject:
'A. L. Holley, who built the Troy works, and made his first conversion in 1865, introduced into this original plant tipping accumulating ladle resting on scales. This ladle was patented by Bessemer in 1869, English patent 566, alluded to in the previous answer, but apparently was an American invention. It was introduced in some form or other in all the American works, and was used almost always in duplicate, holding about two heats each, or many cupola tappings. In the last works built in St. Louis by Holley, in 1876, there were three of these ladles. In all American works these ladles were turning or tipping ladles, and were placed on scales to weigh the converter charges.'
In 1877, describing the Vulcan works, a plant designed and erected under Mr. Holley's supervision, that gentleman said (London Engineering, vol. 23, 1877):
'The cupola ladles ff facilitate the distribution of metal to the vessels. They form reservoirs which make the smelting department and the converting department independent of each other, within limits. This advantage was not appreciated fully until the large productions of the last few years were attempted. Should any delay occur in casting, in preparing a vessel, or from any cause, the melting department keeps right on, for those three ladles will hold six vessel charges, which may be stored and converted when the converting department is ready for them. Cast-iron will 'live' in these thickly lined ladles, when covered with charcoal, for several hours. But it is necessary to put these ladles upon weighing machines, so that either uniform vessel charges may be run out, or so that spiegel charges may be proportioned to such charges as are run out.'
These ladles were variously named. Holley called them cupola ladles, interposed ladles, and reservoirs. Hunt described them as 'intermediate accumulating ladles.'
A witness thus testified respecting the extent of use in this country of the receiving ladle as follows:
'Early American steel works, commencing with Troy in 1864, Pennsylvania in 1867, Cleveland in 1868, Cambria and Union in 1871, North Chicago in 1872, Joliet and Bethlehem in 1873, Edgar Thomson and Lackawanna in 1875, and Vulcan in 1876, used receiving ladles, two in number, holding about two heats each, with the exception of Bethlehem, which used a single ladle on a car to mix taps from four cupolas, and Vulcan, which used three receiving ladles, holding two heats each. These ladles were used for storing and measuring the heats.'
It is shown that from 1879 to 1888 the capacity of the accumulating ladle used at the works of the defendant was 28,000 pounds, and the converter charge 15,500 pounds, leaving 12,500 pounds in the ladle after a charge was supplied to the converter. The cupola taps of from 4,000 to 6,000 pounds passed into and filled such ladle.
Describing the mode of use of the ladle, Price, a witness, said:
'It was the custom to leave in the ladle an amount of metal equal to the difference between the converter charge and the full ladle capacity. . . . This ladle was again filled to its full capacity by retapping the cupolas. . . .
'The metal from the several cupolas necessarily varied from time to time considerably, both in chemical and physical conditions; at times the metal being such from one or two of the cupolas that in themselves they would be unfit for converter use. But by the means which was afforded by the intermediate ladle the metal from this one, or the two, cupolas, would be averaged with the better adapted metal for converting from the others.' Speaking of the beneficial effects resulting from the use of the accumulating ladle at the works of the defendant, another witness (Cabot) said:
'The mixing of cupola metal at Cambria was accomplished by the tapping of a number of cupola furnaces into one large receiving ladle, from which converter charges were poured off, and the supply in this ladle again increased by further tapping. The practice at the Bellaire steel works was similar to that. The purpose was to obtain a supply of metal for the converters to equalize the different streams of metal from the different cupolas, and that was its effect. It accomplished that.'
Yet another witness (Hunt) declared 'it was recognized as one of the great features of the intermediate ladle, that it made the work so much more uniform in results from mixture or evening up of the various grades of pig iron used.'
What distinction can be drawn between these methods and the patent as now construed? This court and the circuit court did put aside the Whitney method on the ground that it provided for obtaining absolute uniformity of product, while the Jones method was held to provide simply for avoidance of abrupt variations. While it is clear that a method which had for its purpose merely the prevention of abrupt variations would not necessarily include one for the obtaining of a uniform product, how a method of reservoiring molten metal as such metal is produced in the furnace and drawing it off from the reservoir for use, which produced uniformity of product as the result of the reservoiring, can be said not to have embraced the prevention of abrupt variations, is to my mind absolutely unthinkable, since the greater must necessarily include the lesser. For, of course, as there cannot be abrupt variations in the constituent elements of a molten metal which is uniform, it must follow that a process of reservoiring which in the continuous operation of a plant will obtain a uniform metal must necessarily exclude abrupt variations in the quality of the metal.
The court now, in addition, disposes, not only of the Whitney practice, but of the others to which reference has just been made, by certain general considerations which it is held applies to them all. These considerations are, first, an assertion that although all such practices included reservoiring and the incidental mixing arising therefrom, none of them contemplated mixing as a necessary and inherent attribute, and none of them embraced the retention in the reservoir of a considerable mass of metal, a dominant pool, as a part of the process of reservoiring; and, second, as the practices in question related to molten metal drawn from cupolas, therefore they did not establish that reservoiring and mixing were known to the art so far as concerns the molten metal drawn directly from blast furnaces.
The first proposition, it is submitted, is absolutely in conflict with the express and uncontroverted proof in the record, as manifested by the references which I have already made. Let me recur to the practices under consideration to show that this is the case. Take the Whitney practice as testified to by Whitney. After saying that withdrawals were not made from the reservoir until 'it was nearly full,' and describing the drawing off of the molten metal from the reservoir, he said:
'And [as] the iron continued to melt [in the cupolas] the ladle was constantly being filled from the cupolas, and it was kept full until all the iron charged in the three cupolas was melted and the bottoms dropped.'
The witness thus clearly showed, not only the constant retention of molten metal in the reservoir, but that such retention was recognized in the practice as essential to secure 'desired uniformity of molten metal.' I cannot see how there can be doubt on this subject, in view of the fact that the witness added:
'If we had drawn it [the molten metal] directly from the cupola into the smaller ladles from which we pour the wheels, one wheel might have been poured out of very hard iron, and another wheel out of very soft iron, and so every shade between. There would have been no uniformity in our work. But by taking it from the three cupolas, all melting the same charges of iron, and collecting them in a molten state, the inequalities of melting were all overcome and a uniform product produced.'
Take the wheel foundry practice as portrayed in Kirk's publication. The statement is made that 'a quantity of molten iron should be kept in the cupola, or in a large ladle, so as to give the different brands of iron a chance to mix.' Again: 'The iron is all run out of the cupola as fast as it is melted, and is mixed in a large ladle.' The publication thus clearly pointed out the advisability of retaining a residuum in the cupola or in the reservoir, for the purpose of better mixing.
Recurring to the Altoona practice, doubt on the subject seems to me to be in reason impossible. It is not gainsaid that such practice embraced reservoiring and mixing. It cannot, it is submitted, be affirmed that it did not embrace the retaining in the reservoir of a large residuum of metal for the express and necessary purpose of making the mixing more perfect, if the proof as to the practice pursued is not wholly disregarded. What was that practice? When the metal in the cupolas began to melt, it was drawn off into the reservoir until the reservoir was half full; then the withdrawals from the cupolas were stopped. But the metal in the half-full reservoir was not, however, then made use of. Why was it not so used, although already in the reservoir? The answer is because it was deemed best, in order to obtain beneficial results from mixing, to hold the half-full reservoir for a subsequent tapping therein from the furnace, of a quantity of molten metal sufficient to fill the reservoir. Only when the reservoir was thus filled did they commence to draw the metal therefrom, and when by such use the quantity in the reservoir was reduced to about one half, then the drawing off was stopped, so as to retain about the one half until there was a further replenishing from the furnace, and thus the operation continued. How, by a mere affirmation, it can be held that the process which has just been described did not contemplate the constant retention of a considerable residuum in the reservoir is to my mind inexplicable. Let me quote again from the record the uncontradicted testimony as to the practice in question:
'The custom was to empty the receiving ladle about one half; then hold the remainder of iron in the reservior until the cupolas were ready to be tapped again; and after the reservoir is full we start and pour out into the smaller ladles again. The receiving ladle at all times is kept about one-half full, and it is this full when we tap the metal into it from the cupola.' The irresistible conclusion thus arising from this proof is, it seems to me, rendered if possible clearer, when it is recalled that as early as 1877 the London Engineering, in a reference to this practice, declared:
'It was found advisable to employ a ladle of so large a capacity, because by doing so a more complete mixture of the different irons is effected than would be the case if a smaller vessel were employed.'
And what has just been said applies equally to the practice of making Bessemer steel from cupola furnaces. That the excerpts which I have given on this subject clearly show that mixing by the use of a residue was the result of the employment of the accumulating ladle, and a result that was well known and intended, it seems to me cannot be gainsaid. How the Jones method, as construed, can be declared to have been novel-because in cupola metal there was no variation requiring mixing-in face of the fact that the very patent which is sustained, in various forms of expression, expressly declares that such variation exists, is not by me comprehended.
Besides, the proposition involves an unsound deduction, since it in effect not only disregards the fact that the practices in question were availed of with the avowed purpose of correcting the inequalities found to exist in cupola metal, but also the erroneous assumption that there could be patentable novelty in merely applying to blast furnaces the well-known practices as to cupola metal.
It may well be conceded, without affecting the case, that the variation is greater in metal drawn from blast furnaces than in that drawn from cupolas, but this mere difference in the degree of variations between the two affords no ground for construing the Jones patent in such a way as to cause it to cover the well-known prior methods.
Nor does the example given in the opinion of the court for the purpose of illustrating the difference which is found to exist between the practices to which I have referred and the Jones patent, as now construed, enable my mind to discover the difference. The court says (italics mine):
'Let us imagine a reservoir containing, say, three quarts, and filled with one quart each of three liquids of different constituent parts, and withdrawn for further treatment at the rate of one or two quarts at a time. Necessarily there would be some incidental mixing, but it would occur at once that the main object of the reservoir was a retention of a sufficient quantity of the mixture to supply the receptacle for further treatment, and if no necessity existed for a longer retention of the liquid in the reservoir, it could be very quickly emptied by two discharges into the receiving vessel. Now, let us substitute for this reservoir a cask of, say, sixty quarts, into which the liquids of different constituent parts are poured in at one end from a multitude of receptacles, and discharged at the other end after remaining a certain time in the cask, and that this cask could not be tilted so far but what a quantity of liquid would be left within it amounting, say, to half its capacity. Now, if there be no distinction between these two operations there would be little left to the Jones process, the very vitality of which consists in the size of the cask relative to the ladles and the mixing of the various liquids poured into it before they are withdrawn.'
In the first place, this example fails to notice the fact that in the accumulating ladle the metal was received from several in some instances as many as four or five-cupolas; and that in practice a residue was constantly maintained, and for the purpose of mixing, and that these ladles could not be drained of metal unless there was an intention to do so. The only distinction afforded by the example is that resulting from the difference in sizes of the two supposed receptacles in which the mixing was accomplished. But this would reduce the patentable novelty in the Jones process to the size of the reservoir. Indeed, it is so expressly stated, since in the opinion it is declared that 'there would be little left to the Jones process, the very vitality of which consists in the size of the cask relative to the ladles and the mixing of the various liquids passed into it before they are withdrawn.' The mixing having been disposed of by what I have already said, it follows that the very vitality of the patent is found to be the size of the cask relative to the ladles, which in reason is a direct abandonment of the whole theory of a dominant pool previously expounded as the source of vitality in the patent. But the size of the reservoir-called by the court a cask-relative to the capacity of the plant is clearly shown not to have been novel by what has been previously said, and will be further demonstrated beyond peradventure by the consideration which it is now proposed to give to--The Manufacture of Bessemer Steel by the Direct Process.
The use of the direct process for Bessemerizing, it would seem, was at once resorted to on the continent of Europe, and there is testimony in the record giving rise to the inference that the greater uniformity of the ores used in the blast furnaces on the continent caused such processes to be there at once quite successful. However, it may not be doubted that on the continent the use of a reservoir or accumulating ladle sometimes obtained, and the advantages which it afforded of bringing about a desirable mixture of the metals from several furnaces was known. Thus Kohn, in the Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, 1871, speaking of the practice at Terre-Noire, in France, said:
'The iron is first run into a ladle, as explained by Mr. Menelaus, and so taken to the converter. The ladle is brought to the back of one furnace, and half filled; it is then run to the next furnace and filled up. In this way the Terre-Noire Company always obtain a mixture of the metals, and therefore the greatest regularity is secured through the rest of the work. The furnaces are kept in regular working order, and by carefully managing the charges of the blast furnaces, and watching them as much as possible, the practical result is that there is no inconvenience as regards the furnaces themselves in tapping frequently. The same thing is done at Mr. Schneider's place at Creuzot, but he believed they do not there go so far as to mix the iron.'
In England the direct process was not made use of until about 1877, and it is shown that this largely resulted from the fact that the Bessemer plants in the early use of the process were not connected with blast furnaces.
In this country, though the manufacture of Bessemer steel was commenced in the early sixties, and in one or two of the early experimental plants a brief use was made of direct metal, the indirect process was in general use until the year 1882, when the first large plant equipped for direct use of blast-furnace metal began operations at the new South Chicago works of the Illinois Steel Company, and later in the same year the Edgar Thomson works (the Carnegie Company), with five new furnaces, also commenced such work. These plants were still producing steel by the direct process, with the use of the accumulating ladle, when the Jones patent was granted in 1889, and it was not until the year 1892 that a large storage tank was installed at the South Chicago works.
A number of patents having relation to the making of steel by the Bessemer direct process were from time to time granted before the Jones patent was issued, and I shall now notice the most important of such inventions, as also some other publications embodied in the literature of the art.
In the British patent to Deighton of 1873 the purpose of the inventor, among others, was declared in the specifications to be to keep a steel-works plant or apparatus in nearly uninterrupted work, thus very considerably increasing the production of such plant. It was said:
'Instead of manufacturing Bessemer iron or steel from pig iron which has to be melted in cupolas, my invention also consists in taking the molten metal directly from the blast furnace to the converter, in which case I prefer to arrange the Bessemer plant in a line at a right angle to a row of two or more blast furnaces, and place a vessel to receive the molten metal tapped from two or more blast furnaces to get a better average of metal which will be more suitable for making Bessemer steel or metal of uniform quality, the vessel or receiver being placed on a weighing machine so that any required weight may be drawn or tapped from it and charged into the converter.'
The apparatus was then described in detail, and consisted of blast furnaces, arranged in a line, with channels from each furnace to a common reservoir or mixer, and with a connection from the mixer to a converter, so that the molten metal in running from the blast furnaces might go into the reservoir and be mixed, and might be drawn off as desired to the converter. It was stated that the receiving vessel 'is placed low enough to give fall for the molten metal to flow from the blast furnaces to this receiver m, which forms a receptacle for mixing the molten metal from two or more of the smelting furnaces. From the receiver m the mixed molten metal is tapped and flows down the swivel through n into the converter a. By placing the vessel m on a weighing machine it can be readily ascertained when the exact quantity required has been tapped from it into the converter.'
In 1885, a few years prior to the grant of the Jones patent, two United States patents were issued to James P. Witherow (1) for apparatus for the manufacture of iron and steel; and (2) steel-plant appliance, which patent showed a blast furnace, an intermediate storage vessel of large size, and a converter. In brief, the purpose of the Witherow reservoir apparatus was to receive and store the molten metal for the purpose of preventing the detention incident to the necessity of discharging the contents of the blast furnaces when there is no converter ready to receive it. The advantages of the large storage receptacle was thus stated in the specification of one of the patents:
"The metal is usually tapped from a blast furnace once in every six hours, and the quantity thus cast is many times in excess of the charge of a converter. . . . The charge of a converter is from one to five tons, and in the case of a blast furnace usually runs from ten to fifty tons. . . . The time between charges of the converter is usually twenty minutes and upward, and the metal from the furnace must be kept in condition to be tapped from time to time into the converter as needed."
The evidence establishes that the Deighton and Witherow reservoirs were each of a capacity of 100 tons.
Commenting, in June, 1877, upon the merits and demerits of the use, then just commenced in England, of direct metal,-that is, the conversion of molten metal direct from the blast furnace, without remelting in a cupola or storing it in a large reservoir, A. L. Holley said (italics mine):
'It has not yet been practicable to work the blast furnace with sufficient regularity to realize approximately the theoretical advantages of the direct process.
'Fourth. The obvious remedy is to mix a number of blast-furnace charges, so as to reduce the irregularity to a minimum. Two systems of doing this are on the eve of trial: The one is simply mixing so few charges in a tank that the metal will be drawn out before it chills; the other is to store a larger number of charges in a heated tank,-that is to say, in an immense open-hearth furnace.'
The first of these two systems of mixing would seem to be that embodied in the following portion of Mr. Holley's description of the West Cumberland practice:
'In order to get a more uniform metal, Mr. Snelus is about trying the experiment of placing a twenty-ton ladle on a hydraulic lift at the 'A' pit, so arranged as to store, mix, and pour, say, three six-ton to seven-ton blast-furnace taps, or to mix blast furnace and cupola metal. No doubt this body of metal will 'live' if the ladle is thickly lined and well covered. Mr. Snelus has another object also: tapping half or a third of a vessel heat out of the blast furnace-in other words, tapping so often-wears out the tap hole more rapidly; slag gets into the walls and weakens them. It is preferable in every way, as blast-furnace men well understand, to tap a full hearth. At the same time improvements in working the furnace are gradually developing. More care is taken as to the selection of ores, the size of ore and limestone, the distribution of materials in the furnace, the temperature of the blast, and all elements of uniformity.
'. . . Uniform results in the Bessemer department can hardly be expected unless a number of blast-furnace charges are mixed. This would seem to be the theoretical solution of the problem.'
The second of the two systems of mixing is undoubtedly the one then being erected at Moss Bay, England, viz., a sixty-ton reverberatory coal-fired furnace or two forty-ton furnaces. The ladles of blast-furnace metal were to be 'tapped out into the large reverberatory furnace,' in which 'it is the intention to store and keep hot some sixty tons of iron from all the blast furnaces.' This method, for some reason not stated, perhaps an economical one, was not successful. Mr. Holley, in the article just noticed, referring to the arrangements in connection with the use of this 'large furnace,' said: 'The complex manipulations due to the arrangement described seem likely to take unnecessary amount of time and labor.'
After reviewing the practice in the various English and continental steel works using direct metal, Mr. Holley summed up his conclusions, and recommended the American works to continue for the present to select and remelt the pig metal, and confine their efforts for some time 'to the preliminary department of the direct process,-to increasing our uniformity of blast-furnace working and product.' We excerpt the following passages from the Conclusions contained in the report:
'Fourth. But if the storage of a large quantity of iron in a reverberatory furnace or other reservoir should prove successful, then a few blast furnaces making even an irregular product, and, if necessary, working in connection with cupolas, would largely economize the Bessemer manufacture.
'In fact, this mixing of irregular irons on a very large scale, thus avoiding the expensive niceties of ore selection and the necessity of many furnaces, is the theroetical key to the situation. When the way to its successful adoption is demonstrated, the direct process will undoubtedly have great advantages, even over the present practice on the continent, which employs manganiferous ores. But until this large-scale mixing is developed it should not appear that the use of our comparatively irregular blast-furnace and part cupola metal can result in any substantial saving.
'But the mixing problem is not such a difficult one. A small amount of flame spread over a large surface of metal should certainly keep it hot for a long time, seeing that the metal will keep hot in a ladle exposed to air for an hour or more. And should there be any trouble about stopping the tap hole in a large storing furnace, it would not be a very difficult or expensive matter (considering the Pernot revolving-hearth experience) to tip the whole hearth to pour a charge.'
Without stopping to comment in detail upon all the matters just referred to, there can be no question that they demonstrate that if the vitality of the Jones patent depends upon the size of the reservoir, it was clearly anticipated. They also further establish that the advisability of the use of a large reservoir for the purposes of storage and mixing was well known; and that it was deemed to be an obvious and desirable expedient is also apparent.
It is not denied that the Deighton and Witherow patents each provided for a reservoir, the former (Deighton) laying stress upon the advantages resulting from the mixing in such reservoir. Both patents, it seems to me, in effect contemplating as they did the continuous operation of the plant, and, in view of the relative capacities of the furnace or furnaces, the reservoir and the converters, necessarily embraced the presence in the reservoir of a considerable residuum, without which residue the proposed continuity was impossible. As it is to me apparent, I do not stop to refer to the testimony showing that this must necessarily be the case. The argument that the Deighton reservoir had no cover, and therefore it is not the Jones process, ignores the fact that Jones in his process patent does not provide for the operation of his method in a covered receptacle, but, on the contrary, in the specifications of that patent, it is declared that the process may be carried on in a charging ladle, an uncovered receptacle. Further, it is to be borne in mind that the record overwhelmingly establishes that it was a well-known expedient to cover a ladle or other receptacle for molten metal when the metal was required to be retained longer than the customary time. The inappositeness of the suggestion that the Deighton patent ought not to be given any weight as showing the state of the art, because the patentee allowed the patent to lapse for the nonpayment of fees, cannot be better illustrated than by this case, when it is recalled that the patent to Mushet, which made Bessemerizing commercially practicable, was allowed to lapse because the Patent Office fees were not paid.
The demonstration of want of novelty in the patent as construed, which arises from the previous considerations, entirely disposes of the case, as it is, as already observed, conceded that, unless the patent means what it is now held to mean, there was no infringement by the defendant. It is to me equally clear, however, that even if the state of the art be, arguendo, put out of view, the patent cannot be held to signify what it is now decided to mean (a) without repudiating the true meaning of the patent, which is-properly deducible from the proceedings in the Patent Office, that is, the filewrapper and contents, and without refusing to give effect to the express declarations and admissions of the patentee (Jones) as to the significance of the patent, which is also shown by the proceedings in question; and (b) without misconceiving and misconstruing the patent. Let me briefly demonstrate these propositions.
As I have said at the outset, the application for the patent in suit when first made was rejected by the Patent Office, on the ground of the prior state of the art, as evidenced by the Witherow patents and the Kirk publication. An amended application was thereupon filed, which beyond all question eliminated from the patent all claim to an exclusive right to reservoir or store the molten metal. When this amendment was presented to the Patent Office, counsel for the applicant submitted a written argument to demonstrate the patentability of the method covered by the amended application, in which no reference whatever was made to the importance of a residue, whether of small or considerable size, but the purpose of the inventor was thus declared (italics mine) 'to have a receptacle capable of holding metal in a molten condition, into which metal, it may be, from several blast furnaces, is run from time to time, and from which metal is drawn for treatment in the converters, or otherwise, as required. This continuous pouring into and drawing out of a common receptacle produces such a mixture of the charges as results in an uniform average quality of metal, whether treated in the converters or used for casting without such treatment, as is very desirable, but has hitherto been found unattainable.' But the amended application was rejected, and the examiner-evidently having in mind the statement in the argument of counsel above referred to-called the attention of the applicant to the fact that the continual pouring into and drawing out of the molten metal to produce a mixture was anticipated by the Kirk publication. The examiner said (italics mine):
'The process, as now claimed, seems to be fully met by the description in Kirk's Metal Founding, heretofore referred to, which states that the metal is run continuously from the cupola and mixed in the ladlc, from which it is tapped into the smaller ladle. See also the additional references of British patents No. 859, Broman, March 23, 1866, page 5, lines 25-35, and No. 2382, Stewart, May 10, 1883, page 5, lines 9 and 10.'
When it is borne in mind that the Kirk publication thus referred to provided expressly for a continuous inflowing and outdrawing of the metal, and besides expressly said 'a quantity of molten metal should be kept . . . so as to give the different brands of iron a chance to mix,' the conclusion cannot by me be escaped that the examiner pointed out to Jones that the conception of a continuous inflow and outflow, and the keeping of a residue for the purpose of mixing, was not patentable.
The presumption cannot be indulged in that the amendment was not intended to obviate the objection on account of which the Patent Office had rejected the application, and, moreover, it cannot be assumed that the Patent Office issued the patent for a method which it declared was not patentable. But now the patent is construed by the court as covering the continuous flowing into and withdrawal from a reservoir of molten metal, and as alone referring to the prevention of abrupt variations in the metal drawn from the reservoir for use in a converter, while Jones himself declared to the Patent Office that the patent as amended related to metal drawn (from a reservoir for treatment in a converter, or otherwise, as required. Besides, it was expressly stated that what the patent contemplated was the production of a uniform quality of metal, intended for further treatment in the converters, or to be used for casting without such treatment. It is submitted that this demonstrates that the construction now given by the court to the patent is directly repugnant to the meaning which Jones affixed to it, and besides is in conflict with the ruling of the Patent Office, in which Jones acquiesced, and upon which the patent was issued; and therefore that the construction which the patent now receives amounts, it seems to me, to a grant by judicial decision of a new and different patent from that which the Patent Office allowed.
Conclusive as is the view just stated, it is made, if possible, more so if the correct construction of the patent be ascertained. This it is proposed to demonstrate by an analysis of the patent as originally applied for, by a consideration of the amendments made to it, and by its text in its final form. Considering these matters, it will, I think, appear that the patent was not, as now held to be, solely one for the prevention of abrupt variations in the metal drawn from the receptacle for use in a converter. On the contrary, the true purport of the patent was this, and this only: The selection of separate portions of molten metal, pouring the same into a reservoir, mixing such aggregated portions of molten metal thoroughly until it, the commingled metal, became uniform, so that the equalized metal might be used, not alone in the making of steel in a converter, but in any other process of making steel, in a foundry, or in any other mode where a uniform product was desired. Having thus provided for equalizing the contents of the reservoir when filled with selected metal and mixing had been accomplished, the patent contemplated that this equalized molten metal present in the reservoir should be drawn off for any desirable purpose down to an undetermined residue, so that when a fresh supply of selected metal was charged into the reservoir the metal thus newly supplied might be mixed with the residuum, and thus not only a further supply of equalized metal might be obtained, but also, as a result, abrupt variations between the freshly equalized metal and that of the preceding batch discharged from the reservoir would be avoided.
To demonstrate the correctness of this construction, which, as already shown, was undoubtedly the view taken by the Patent Office, let me come to consider the application for the patent, the amendments, and the patent as granted.
The application, as originally filed, contained a statement of the primary object of the invention, which is excerpted in the margin.
'The primary object of the invention is to provide means for insuring uniformity in the product of a Bessemer steel works or similar plant, in which the metal from more than one (subsequently amended to read 'one or more') blast furnaces is employed to charge the converters. The product of the different furnaces, or of the same furnace at different times, varies This was followed by a statement of the secondary objects designed to be attained as follows:
'My invention, however, is not limited to its use in connection with converters, since similar advantages may be obtained by casting the metal from the mixing vessel into pigs for use in converters, puddling furnaces, or for any other uses to which pig iron may be put in the art.'
A description was then given of the apparatus, which it was previously stated had been invented 'for practising my invention,' and the mode of operation of such apparatus was stated. The claim read as follows:
'The process hereinbefore described, which consists in storing charges of molten metal in a covered receptacle provided with a heat-retaining lining, removing portions only of the molten contents of the said receptacle without entirely draining or emptying the same, and successively replenishing the receptacle with fresh additions of molten metal, whereby the character of the several charges of metal so treated is equalized; substantially as described.'
Considering the application as thus made, what support does it lend to the theory now announced that it was the purpose of the Jones invention merely to prevent abrupt variations between each charge of metal drawn from a reservoir for treatment in a converter? Such purpose is nowhere declared, unless it be inferred from certain statements in the patent descriptive of the mode of operation of the appliance covered by the apparatus patent, to which, hereafter, I shall more particularly advert. The conception that the patent solely related to abrupt variations in metal drawn from a reservoir and supplied to a converter is absolutely excluded by the fact that the secondary object is pointed out to be to secure a pig metal so uniform in its chemical constituents that it might be used 'in puddling furnaces or for any other use to which pig iron might be put in the art.' It cannot be conceived that the patent provided for making the metal uniform in the reservoir, and, by the same language, provided merely against the occurrence of abrupt variations in the equalized metal when drawn off to a converter. If made uniform, there could not, in the nature of things, be abrupt variations. It being, then, certain that the process patent, as originally filed, in and of itself not only contained even no intimation of the claim which the court now attributes to the patent, it must follow that if the patent covered such a claim it was one not in the mind of Jones, but must have been in some way evolved in the passage of the application through the Patent Office.
This original application, as I have said, was rejected by the Patent Office as being 'completely anticipated' by the Witherow patents, and reference was made to the Kirk publication.
To meet this objection a change was made by which the assertion of an exclusive right to store charges of molten metal was eliminated, the amendment being as follows:
'The process hereinbefore described, which consists in running successive charges of molten metal into a covered receptacle provided with a heat-retaining lining, removing from time to time from said receptacle for subsequent treatment a portion only of its molten contents, and successively replenishing such receptacle with fresh additions of molten metal, for the purpose of equalizing the character of the several charges of metal drawn therefrom, substantially as described.' Accompanying this paper was the argument of the attorney, already referred to, in which it was expressly declared, as has been seen, that the patent related to uniformity of molten metal for further treatment in converters, or otheruise; that is, as declared in the argument, the obtaining of a metal of such uniform quality that it might not alone be used in converters, but might be 'used for casting without such treatment.'
As the application, as amended, was asserted to embody a claim for the continuous operation of a plant by reservoiring metal, by inflowing and outflowing, with mixing,-a method construed by the Patent Office as identical with that described in the Kirk publication,-the patent, as already stated, was again rejected. It was again amended, and, as thus finally amended, the patent was allowed. The new amendments consisted, first, of a substituted statement of the primary object of the invention, which is excerpted in the margin. It will be observed,
'The primary object of my invention is to provide means for rendering the product of steel works uniform in chemical composition. In practice it is found that metal tapped from different blast furnaces is apt to vary considerably in chemical composition, particularly in silicon and sulphur; and such lack of uniformity is observable in different portions of the same cast, and even in different portions of the same pig. [Here follows table of analyses said to have been made of metal contained in different ladle charges from one cast of a blast furnace.] . . . The consequence of this tendency of the silicon and sulphur to segregate or form pockets in the crude metal is that the product of the refining process in the converters or otherwise in like manner lacks uniformity in these elements, and therefore often causes great inconvenience and loss, making it impossible to manufacture all the articles of a single order of homogeneous composition. Especially is this so in the process of refining crude iron taken from the smelting furnace and charged directly into the converter without remelting in a cupola, and, although such direct process possesses many economic advantages, it has on this account been little practised.
'For the purpose of avoiding the practical evils above stated, I use in the refining process a charge composed not merely of metal taken at one time from the smelting furnace, but of a number of parts taken from different smelting furnaces, or from the same furnace at different casts, or at different periods of the same cast, and subject the metal before its final refining to a process of mixing whereby its particles are diffused or mingled thoroughly among each other, and the entire charge is practically homogeneous in composition, representing in each part the average of the unequally diffused and segregated elements of silicon and sulphur originally contained in each from the concluding sentence in the first paragraph, that it was clearly implied that the applicant deemed that inequalities were present in cupola metal as well as in blast-furnace metal.
There was substituted for the single claim as originally presented and amended the two claims embodied in the patent as finally issued, and which have been previously set out.
It plainly results from the amendment that it was drawn to meet the objection of the examiner and to make clear the fact that the character of the mixing contemplated by the Jones process was not that resulting from a continuous operation of a reservoir by the inflowing and outdrawing of metal with the constant retention of a residuum, but was a distinct character of mixing by thorough commingling of batches of metal, in order to produce in a reservoir a molten metal which would be homogeneous and uniform, of a character deemed to be unattainable by the continuous process; the purpose of securing this reservoir of uniform metal being to obtain a mixed metal so uniform in its chemical constituents that it might be, with greater advantage than theretofore, subjected to further treatment in the converters or be run into pigs, which, by reason of the uniform quality of the metal, might then be used for any purpose where such a metal was desired. In other words, the amendment was drawn for the purpose of satisfying the Patent Office that the method which was claimed should not be rejected because the prior art provided against the mere variations in the metal drawn from the reservoir, as the patent went further and described a process of mixing which would bring about the greater result of a uniform molten metal and consequent uniform product.
This conclusion is rendered clear by the fact that the amended application not only retained in substance all the prior declarations as to the purpose of obtaining a uniform mixed molten metal, and as to the use of such uniform metal in converters, or otherwise, but emphasized the same by adding the following:
'To this end my invention may be practised with a variety of forms of apparatus. For example, by merely receiving in a charging ladle a number of small portions of metal taken from several ladles or receiving vessels containing crude metal obtained at different times or from different furnaces, the mixing being performed merely by the act of pouring into the charging ladle, and other like means may be employed.'
And to make the object of the amendment perfectly clear, the prior description of the method was supplemented by stating that the 'commingling of the contents may be aided by agitation of the vessel on its trunnions, so as to cause the stirring or shaking of its liquid contents.'
True it is that on the trial below the complainant presented a disclaimer, which the court now upholds, by which he sought to eliminate from the patent the amendments which had been inserted to meet the objections of the Patent Office examiner, and which indubitably fixes the meaning of the patent. I do not deem it necessary, however, to stop to refer to authorities to show that a disclaimer which, in effect, has for its object the making of a new patent by striking out the essential representations upon which the patent was granted, is without legal warrant. This, it is submitted, is the obvious result of the authorities to which the opinion of the court refers.
But even if the patent as it is now made over, as I think, by the effect which is given by the court to the disclaimer, be alone considered, it plainly results that the patent as so changed did not contemplate, as now decided, solely the prevention of abrupt variations in the metal drawn from the reservoir for use in the converter, since the patent yet provides: 'Instead of discharging the metal into the cars 12, and carrying it in the cars to the converters or casting house, the vessel 2 may be so situate relative to the other parts of a furnace plant as to deliver its contents immediately to the converters or other place where it is to be utilized.' I fail to see how it can be held, even giving the fullest effect to the disclaimer, that the patent provides only for metal to be supplied to a converter, when it expressly points out that the metal may be used 'in the casting house, in the converters, or other place where it is to be utilized.'
I come now to the statements found in the patent to which I have previously alluded, which the court thinks give support to the claim that the patent had reference merely to the avoidance of abrupt variations in metal supplied to the converters. The statements thus relied upon are contained in that portion of the patent where the mode of operation of the appliance covered by the apparatus patent is described. These passages are excerpted in the margin.
When the passages in question are properly considered, it becomes, I submit, incontrovertible that, instead of sustaining,
'Referring now to the drawings, 2 represents the resevoir before mentioned. It consists of a covered hollow vessel having an outer casing 3 of iron or steel, which is suitably braced and strengthened by interior beams and tie-rods, as shown in the drawings. The whole exterior of the vessel is lined with fire brick or other refractory lining, which should be of sufficient thickness to retain the heat of the molten contents of the vessel and to prevent chilling thereof. The vessel is strongly braced and supported by braces and tie-rods, and may be of any convenient size, holding, say, 100 tons of metal (more or less), and its shape is preferably such as shown in the drawings, being rectangular, or nearly so, in cross section, and an irregular trapezium in longitudinal section, one end being considerably deeper than the other. At the top of the deeper end, which I call the 'rear' end, is a hopper 5, into which the molten metal employed in charging the vessel is poured, and at the front end is a discharge spout 6, which is so located that the bottom of the spout is some distance above the bottom of the vessel,-say 2 feet in a hundred-ton tank, and more or less, according to the capacity of the vessel,-the purpose of which is that when the metal is poured out of the spout a considerable quantity may always be left remaining and unpoured, and that whenever the vessel is replenished there may already be contained in it a body of molten metal with which the fresh they are antagonistic to, the construction which has been given by the court to the patent, and hence sustain the construction which has been presented in this dissent.
Referring to the excerpted matter in the margin, it will be seen that in the second paragraph is described the mode of filling the reservoir. Various portions of metal, termed 'charges,' are drawn 'either from a number of furnaces or at different times from a single furnace,' and such charges are introduced into the reservoir until the vessel is full; that is, to use the language of the patent, until a 'sufficient charge' has been supplied to the reservoir, the result being, as stated in the patent, that the charges of metal thus accumulated in the reservoir 'constitute a homogeneous molten mass, whose quality may not be precisely the same as that of any one of its constituent charges, but represents the average quality of all of the charges.' Thus it appears that the patentee had in mind the cure of the inequalities or variations present in the 'charges' of metal poured into the reservoir to make up the 'sufficient charge,' and thereby to cause such sufficient charge 'to constitute a homogeneous molten mass, whose quality may not be precisely the same as that of any one of its constituent charges, but represents the average quality of all the charges.' And the production of this homogeneous mass, it is further observed, 'may be aided by the agitation of the vessel on its trunnions, so as to cause the stirring or shaking of its liquid contents.' Manifestly, not only the obtaining of the homogeneous molten mass is absolutely incompatible with the theory that the patent related to mere variations, but the statement about the agitation of the vessel on its trunnions is likewise a negation that the conception of the patent related to the continuous inflowing and outflowing of molten metal from the reservoir. The construction now put upon the patent by the court disregards the provision that the variation which was to be cured was that existing between the 'charges' as they were poured in, and assumes-contrary to the language of the patent-that the purpose was to cure variations which would exist in the mass of molten metal, when, by a sufficient charge, the reservoir had been filled. And this, although it is expressly declared in the patent that by the operation of the reservoir, in the mode described, the variations existing in the metal before the pouring in would be destroyed by the mixing, which would cause the mass from which withdrawals were to be made to become homogeneous.
The error becomes more manifest upon an examination of the last of the excerpted paragraphs, wherein is contained directions as to the withdrawals of the equalized metal from the sufficient charge; that is, the filled reservoir of equalized metal and the replenishing of the reservoir with new charges to make another sufficient charge. It will be seen that the patent contemplated the discharge of the mass of homogeneous metal by tilting the tank down to a residue, and that no reference is made to replenishing the reservoir until provision is made for the retention of a residue. Then the reservoir is to be replenished by the addition of new charges which mix with these parts of previous charges, which have been equalized and which remain in the reservoir as a residue. Obviously, in this subsequent addition of charges it was intended that a 'sufficient charge' of metal should be contained in the reservoir, which, when thoroughly mixed, would form another homogeneous mass of molten metal, it being declared 'by which means any sudden variations in the quality of the metal supplied to the converter is avoided.' 'By which means' is clearly meant the bringing into existence of the homogeneous mass referred to in the patent. In other words, the patent points out that by making all the 'constituent charges' of a 'sufficient charge' homogeneous there would be no variations in the withdrawals from that equalized mass. And this is, besides, made more manifest by the following sentence in which attention is called to the fact that the equalized metal thus drawn off might be carried to the converters or be cast into pigs without treatment in the converters.
Moreover, turning to the first paragraph in the excerpt, it will be perceived that it is stated that the operation of the mixer as described will 'secure, as much as possible, uniformity in the character of the metal which is fed to and discharged from the tank [meaning the equalized mass], and cause the fluctuations in the quality of the successive tappings to be very gradual.' That is to say, the patent contemplated that each distinct full reservoir or sufficient charge, constituting a batch of metal, would be homogeneous in itself and substantially uniform in its chemical constituents, and the successive 'sufficient charges' or 'full reservoirs' would, by means of the residuum, vary but slightly between each other. The words 'successive tappings' can have no other meaning than successive batches, for it is impossible to conceive that they could refer to the separate withdrawals of metal taken from one full reservoir or sufficient charge, because it had been declared that the 'constituent charges' of each full reservoir of metal by the operation described would become homogeneous; that is, practically uniform.
Certainly, this construction of the patent gives effect to all of its provisions, and harmonizes with its plain letter, while the contrary construction, now approved by the court, reads out of the patent the repeated statements as to the purpose of the patent being to secure a uniform molten metal, and disregards the fact that the patent expressly provides that what it aims to secure is such uniform metal as is fit, not only for use in converters, but for castings and any other mode by which such a metal can be utilized. Certainly, what has been previously stated is a demonstration that the construction previously given by me accords with the express declaration made by the patentee when he applied for his patent, and is strictly in harmony with the action of the Patent Office in allowing the patent. It is equally clear that the construction of the patent, which has been by me elucidated, is, besides, in accord with the conception entertained by the Patent Office of the meaning of the patent long after it had been issued. Thus, the Commissioner of Patents, in a report bearing date January 1, 1896, reviewing the advance in the industrial arts, said (italics mine):
'A process now commonly used in steel manufacture is that of patent No. 404,414, January 4, 1889, to Jones, in which he described a means of getting a uniform product of metal by mixing together in a suitable receptacle batches of metal from different furnaces, so that the mixture when drawn off will be the average of the different charges.'
As the views hereinbefore expressed sufficiently make manifest the reasons for my dissent, it is unnecessary to stop to notice many matters considered in the opinion of the court. Lest, however, if they are not referred to, it may be assumed that assent is given to them, the more important of such statements are briefly adverted to. First, it is said that the making of steel by the direct process was commercially impracticable before the grant of the Jones patent, and that that patent operated a revolution in the art. The proposition, in my opinion, finds no support in the record. On the contrary, it is affirmatively established that not only on the continent, but in England and in this country, long prior to the grant of the Jones patent, Bessemer steel was made by the direct process, upon a large scale, continuously and successfully. So far as revolution in the art is concerned by the alleged enormous saving rendered possible by the use of the Jones method, it is not perceived how such a statement is compatible with the unquestioned proof in the record that, although the complainants at their Edgar Thomson works erected several of the Jones mixers about the time of the grant of the Jones patent, they did not introduce them into their other works until more than seven years afterwards. Indeed, to my mind it is established by the record that the Jones method, when put into practical operation by the complainant, proved not to be a commercial success, and the apparatus was continued in use despite this fact because of the means which it afforded of securing on a larger scale the benefits of storage hitherto well known in practice, and that the use of this larger storage vessel became more and more advantageous as the capacity of blast furnaces was enlarged and improvements took place in the mode of their operation.
The statement that upon the grant of the Jones patent the so-called mixer was at once adopted by steel works generally in this country is also unwarranted by the facts in evidence, which establish without any conflict that storage reservoirs of like capacity to that of the Jones apparatus were in use at the time of the hearing of this cause in but three steel works in the United States outside of those operated by the complainant, and that their introduction long after the grant of the Jones patent in such outside works is shown to have been coincident with the increase in blast-furnace output and the necessity which had thus arisen for greater reservoir capacity to hold the enormous supply of molten metal which was then being produced by the operation of blast furnaces. The record, moreover, establishes that in the works in question, where, long after the grant of the Jones patent, large reservoirs were first employed, this was done, not because better results were secured by means of mixing than had been obtained by the mixing theretofore resorted to, but because the larger output of blast furnaces pointed to the necessity for the construction of a larger reservoir than those previously employed.
The effect of the decision now rendered, it seems to me, is, therefore, to put the patentee in a position where, without invention on his part, and without the possession by him of lawful letters patent, he is allowed to exact tribute from the steel and iron-making industry, whenever those engaged in such industry desire to increase their plants or to more conveniently and satisfactorily conduct their operations so as to keep pace with the natural evolution of modern industrial development.
I am authorized to say that the CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Brewer concur in this dissent.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse