The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1919-06-19


the scope of the claims the
language quoted seems to indicate
clearly enough that the opinion of the
court then was, as 1t is declared now
to be, that as to the claims here in
yolved the patent extends to and COW
ers the use Of in the process of oils OF
the patent, in amounts equal to any
fraction of / per cent on the ore. The
oleic acid claims are in terms limited
to 0.O2-0.5 per cent on the ore. The
circuit court Of appeals fell into err
ror in the Interpretation which 1t
placed upon our opinion and its judg-
ment in this respect is reversed.
"Since the case must be retired
there remains to be considered the re-
versal by the circuit court of appeals
of the holding of the district court
that the use of oil by the respondent
in excess Of per cent on the ore con-
stituted an infringement of the pat
emit"
As to infringement.
The decision dwells upon the utili-
cation of the Inert" oils, so termed
by the petitioners, in efforts to use
more than l per cent of oil on the ore
and leads up to this query: Does the
use of more efficient, in combination
with a less efficient, oil of the patent,
constitute infringement, where the
! q to, in, Nj
the limits of the claim but the COM
bined amount Is in excess of such
limit, and when the amount of more
efficient oil used would probably pro-
duce better results from the process
than are produced with the combina
ton Of ols?"
The court holds that until the Hyde
case testimony was closed in 1912 pc
troeum products were unrecognized
by the petitioners as useful and effi-
cient, and that they are still used, in
the process of the patent. The cour1
also points out that these products
are not as highly efficient as pine oi
and several other oils and combina.
tions.
The court points out that the evil
dence Is far from satisfying and is es'
pecially doubtful on petitioners testi
mony that a computation on the ba
sis of tonnage of ore treated by tn,
respondent shows that if the process
as practiced by it after January 8
1917, had been used through the yea
it would have involved loss of owe
81, 100000 in increased cost of oil ant
in diminished recoveries as compared
with what results of operation woul'
have been for the same time using tn
process of the patent as practiced b,
the petitioners. 1t is difficult to Sc
, how process so wasteful and inef
ficient as that of the respondent
thus proved to be can be other thai
substantially different from that of tn
petitioners"
Many New Discoveries.
Since the instigation of the litiga
ton which hinged largely upon the Is
, adaptation of the process to the ore
from the Black Rock mine there hav
been many Illuminating discussions
/ and much new study and experiment
alton has been carried on all over tn
world and especially in the Unite
States by the most skillful metallur
gists and scientific workers of tn
; country. Many new things have beel
discovered and demonstrated concern
ing the refinements of the process an,
much that was hazy has been dragge,
forth into the limelight of demonstra
ton and proof by authorities, who's
statements are of such soundnes
as to deny confusion
Not the least of these discussion
have been the articles written by Prof
r. A, Richard, the veteran editor o
the Mining and Scientific Press, of Sal
Francisco, who has since the start o
the "unholy demands" of the Mineral
Separation concern for an extortionat
royalty and unheard- of impositions a
to Improvements that were laid upol
licensees, has waged protest agains
the claims Of the patentees.
In a recent discussion Professor
Richard pointed out many Vulnerable
points wherein the patent might have
been more successfully attacked ha(
not the present case been opened ur
and carried up to an early decision a:
to its validity before the supreme
court on the issues involved in tn,
Hyde case as presented in the Butte
Superior litigation. The question OF
the actual chemical reactions involved
in the process appears to be of vastl,
more Importance in the determination
of the patentability of the process
than that Of the mechanical devices OF
duplication of the process.
Chemical Reactions.
Had the case been tried to finish
on the basic contention that its re-
suits were due to purely chemical re.
actions and the natural results o.
the application Of chemical principle:
that were known to the prior art, an(
were Of common knowledge and usage
and, moreover natural chemical reac.
tions that were not patentable under
the United States patent laws, it /.
Ia