Year: 1870

stan their that no did not dscover the art OF
manufacturing whito paper from straw oy the use
causo aka and steam pressure but that ne iounu "'
such manufacture could be carried on at great saving
in aka time and labor and better paper be produced
by employing very high steam pressure-not less than
70 nonnds 10 the square nOh The OF causto alka
and sea pressure had been I'm some time; In fact
several French patents had been taken out before Mel
licr natcuted his process On what grounds then did
Mellier ask for q PATENT The manufacturers reply


simply on the ground OF carrying the temperature in the
process Of manufacture TO very high point-not
less than SlOo Fahrenheit, or 70 pounds pressure
TO the square inch the boiling Of the material
for short time at the lowest possible temperature war
ranted by his experience MeerEdeclared that could
not be done under pounds pressure land entered the
specifications of his patent in accordance with that
theory. The other manufacturers have however, dis
covered that increase Of the time OF boiling at the low
pressure before the patented Improvement OF Me
lier answers all the purposes, and has precisely the
same effect as the Meler process and they ask If IT he
true that long boiling at low temperatures is the equva
lent OF boiling for a short time at high temperatures
what was there OF novelty improvement in Melhers
discovery which does not equally apply to the discovery
OF the production OF the effect by slow boiling at
low temperaturesi They maintain that If one was dis
covery entitled patent the other starting from the
same basis, has equal right as matter of equity


But the manufacturers not only assert that the slow



it produces much better pulphat the Meller process
produces mushy PASTE" wholly destroys the cylin-
drca form Of the straw Injuries the fber and makes IL
very short and liable TO waste The slow boiling process
at low temperature on tho contrary while ehectualy
removing the silica and cOOrng matter does not njure
the fiber but leaves it long and In better condition Tor
further treatment From this fact they argue that Mel
lers process was supposed Improvement, not real
one but that their process is an advance IN the Hght
direction in the art Of paper-making, and that,
as it is totally opposed in theory to that
Of Mellier, st cannot in equity be considered
an infringement on his patent of the rights OF the
American Wood Company. The main issue will turn on
the wording of the specifications OF Meer's patent IT,


s the manufacturers appear 10 cOncede his right covers
the use Of causc alka in the manufacture Of paper at


boiling heat Of not less S1O Fahrenheit or 70 pounds
pressure to the square nch it docs not follow that his
patent can prevent others from manufacturing at a
lower rate Of temperature, His specifications expressly
state that 3lO Fahrenheit absolutely necessary to the
success of his process and was on that ound-intense
boiling hcat-that the patent was granted The decision
OF the questions at between the Company Is not
only OF vast moment 10 the manufacturers but also TO
the public Should the general manufacturers succeed


In superseding the claims of the Company, the beneht
will accrue to the public. They have no power to patent


their process for is in common use among them all
A ease involving their question was argued before
Judge Woodruff in the United States Circuit Court New
York in October It VIII probably be decided In Janu-
ary but will certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court
for final adjudication.