, 1873-02-05
Et3 Eytension---Scope Of the Patent,
aud Suits t!ItI2r It.
How Its True Character Has Been
Concealed.
Proposed Amendment of the Pat
ent Laws.

The Mellier patent for u certain process for
the n1anufecture OF Thlte paper from straw was
granted By the United States to III. 4. G. AieIier,
May &c, 1857, for fourteen years from the 7th Of
August, 1864, tie date Of his French patent for
! the same invention. Ho also obtained similar
patent in England.
| TIE EXTENSION.
| An extension OF the patent was applied for
just before it expired, and the Acting Commits
soner granted the application but it has been
held by Judge Woodruff, Judge OF the Cir
cult Court Of tho United stctcs for
the Southern District Of New York,
that tho extension WAS invalid, because
the order for the extension was not duly made
| before tho patent had expired. No appeal has
yet been taken against that decision, nor has any
application yet been made to Congress to remedy
| the defect but such application will doubtless
bo nnado il the Supreme Court shall, on appeal,
| sustain the decision OF the Court below. In tho
meantime, tho case is kept in doubt and uncer-
| tainty. The proposed act to which your article
! refers does not appear to be applicable to this
case.
| It suits tile purpose Of tho patcnteea to keep
up show Of claim OF their patent, III most
people will submit and pay them royalty rather
than be dragged into litigation lasting just 80
| long as the plaintiffs chosa. No importance has
over been attached in England or Franco to the
alleged invention Of Mollier. It has never been
recognized in either Of these countries us having
nny merits whatever.
! TILE WATT BURGESS PATENTS.
The American Wood Paper Company, tho cwn-
ers Of these patents, purchased the Mollier pat
| ent some years ago, but that Company held it to
be OF secondary Importance, and as entirely sub
! ordinate to tho patents granted BY the United
| States on July IL, 1854, to Measrs. Watt j. Bur-
CESS, Of England, for making paper pulp from
| tcood and other Gbrous vegetable substances.
| Those gentlemen also obtained patents in Eng
land aud France. sln1ilar to their American pat
ent, but have failcd to obtain any recognition Of
their merits in those countries, up to the pros-
ont time.
THE RE1ssAc sYsTEN.
BY virtuo, however, Of the Reissac systom in
this country, they, by repeated amendments Of
their American patent finally got it into such =
shape "a to claim q monopoly of the process OF
| making paper pulp by boiling tibrous vegetable
| substances in caustio alkali, under pressure Of
sto.m ut near or above 300 degrees Fehrenheit,
such process consisting Of q single chemical
stage. By this mannuvcrlng, they appropriated
and adopted the more recent discoveries and ill.,
yentioa5 of othars, which, under the reissue
deception. were mado 10 appear as their OWL in
yentaon, and as Of the date Of the original
patent. a..
As no such trick could bo played by them in
England or France, thcy never got l. penny for
their patents there but these patents have long
Eince been consigned to oblivion.
The AIellier patent Is also for single-stage
chemical process for making papor-pulp from
straw by boiling it in caustic al1keh Of certain
strength (be.ween aud 8 degrees Reaumer)
under a Steam prosSuTe Of not less than 70
pounds to tho square inch. =
SUITS OK THE hELL1En PATENT.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Mailer aad
Watt l. Burgess patents conflict with each other.
the American Wood-Papcr Company couple them
together in tho sane suit, and, failing on their
principal ground the sood-pu1p patents. they
fail back on tho Ae1lier patent. They brought
q suit in the Circuit Court Of the District Of
Pennsylvania asalnzt Helt and others, which
Court Of the United stales, and Judge Csdwal-
lader, District Judge. Thoso Judges agreed
that the Watt i Burgess patents wcro utterly
void, the reissued patents moi being for tho same
invention Us tho original patent. Judge Grier
held that tho Mellier patent also was void for
want Of novelty md merit. Tie bill was there
fore dismissed.
A moot case was then devised, md the before
mentioned caEa was appealed to the Supreme
dismissed, as it was shown to the Court by
Benjamin. r. Butler that tho defendants had
become jointly interested with tho plaintiffs in
the patent, tho subject Of the suit, and that the
the purpose Of getting up sham fight in Court.
Another suit Is no" pending on appeal in tho
Supreme Court of tho United 6tates: The
Ams1lcan 1Voo1-Parcr Company Us. The Fibre
Dtsa'1teg'attng conpany,-tho record in which
case contains evidence showing that, after the
Introduction into this country OF tho closed
revolving pulping boiler called tho 6po1ord
ba:lcr, patented b. SpoGord in this country in
13io, it w:s the common practice hero to reduce
various refractory vegetable fibrous substanceH-
such rs otton-sccds, rope, etc.,-to paper pulp
by boiling thcm in those boilers with caustic al
kali, using steam pressure Of 60 pounds and
upwards. Il ii alGo proved in tha. cSso that
very tina white paper Lad bosn made in tho year
fyF nj ink
American, at his papor-miu in Cnalford, ulou-
ccstcraliro, England. Tnia paper EGs exhibited
at tho London Exhibition in the year 1851, and q
prizo was awarded for it.. It was very Strong
from straw. Wright took ont patents in tho
United States and England for his proceas.
At the date OF the Meller patent, tl1ero was
absolutely no novelty Whatever in tho process Of
boiling straw in aclose boiler with cauaic alka!i,
under high steam pressure. Nor does tho
patent alleSc Or claim that there was any novel;
ty in that. Tho alleged novelty conaistod first,
in tho uzo Of . poculnr form Of boiler (Which is
not Used atialD ead, second, in tho uEe OF pro-
ccss OF boiling straw III c.asti: aliaE under q
Etoam pressure Of 20. lesa than 70 pounds to tie
inch, III n solution Of caust:c aliaI OF certain
apecif}od' strength
The counsel for tho Wood-Psper Company
took tho ground that it was e. new thing 10 LEO |
oaly siny!e-Slage chemical process; tia. tie |
uso OF 6teain PRESSURE below 10 pounds was an |
Infringement; and that it did not signify what !
the strength of the chemical solution might be
also, that tho word f8straw" included al fbrous
vegetable substances.
Hence they md the experts called in behalf
Of tho plaintiffs, insisted that Wright's process,
which IVES prior to Ieiicr's, did not invnl;date |
Mellier's patent because Wright used t,co chem
ical stages,--i.e G., he first bolled the straw in
solution Of lime, bruised and washed it, aud then
put tho prepared material in close boiler, and ]
boiled it with caustic alhai uader pressure, in |
boilers made to bear 100 pounds pressure. It is !
now now common practice to hare two or more
ton Of straw or wood to pulp preparatory to !
bleaching,- experience having proved that tia
theory Of tho Mellier nnd Watt 4; Burgess |
patents is falllcy. It is now known, and gen
orally rccoguized that the straw, or other hbrous
substance. should not be treated at !
once with strong cauatic alkal in 3
close boilsr, but should bo prepared !
for the application Of that chomicel !; that tho |
principal part Of the c<traneous and worthless |
matter in the straw neutralzns tne alka]i, and ]
should be eliminated beioro tho Introduction Of
the material iato the close boiler with tue causic