Opinion ID: 1475532
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Passow Patent.

Text: On May 28, 1912, a United States patent was granted Hermann Passow for a method of making filters from diatomaceous earth. In the patent, the process is described as follows: If an intimate mixture of kieselguhr, clay and the like with a suitable flux such as salt, fluorspar, is burned at a high temperature a fritted, porous substance will be produced which forms an excellent filtering material, remarkable for its great strength and its high filtering speed.    If the aforementioned burning operation is however carried out at temperatures which will not suffice to completely fuse the filter components, a bacteria proof filtering material will be produced, as the kieselguhr will remain perfectly sound, and this filtering material thus obtained will be extremely brittle and very sensitive toward outward mechanical and physical influences. Examination of that patent shows that two steps which constitute the process of that patent are disclosed. In the first step, the composition of kieselguhr, clay, and a suitable flux such as salt are heated to a high temperature so that the mixture is fritted together; in the second step, some of the same mixture is burned at a temperature which will not suffice to completely fuse the filter components and a layer of soft filtering material is produced. We think that the patent in suit is anticipated by the prior art referred to and particularly by the North, Lozé, and Passow patents. In regard to the product claim in suit (claim 18) we think it clear that there is no invention over the product produced by North and Lozé, although it may be assumed that appellant's product is superior. Such a difference, if it may be attributed to the patented process, is only one of degree and is not patentable. Lovell Mfg. Co. v. Cary, 147 U.S. 623, 13 S.Ct. 472, 37 L.Ed. 307; Greene Process Metal Co. v. Washington Iron Works, 9 Cir., 84 F.2d 892; Elliott Core Drilling Co. v. Smith, 9 Cir., 50 F.2d 813, 816; California Fruit Growers' Exchange et al. v. Blake, Moffitt & Towne, 9 Cir., 19 F.2d 467. In regard to the process claims in suit (claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 21) it is clear that the patents to North and Passow in particular anticipate them. The variation between the North process and the process in suit is that in the latter the earth and added flux is burned in powdered form while in the former the mixture is burned in formed parts or bricks. But the essence of the claimed invention lies in the fact that, prior to calcination, the diatomaceous earth is uniformly mixed with a flux. When so mixed and when properly calcined the product produced has a high flow rate when compared with the unprocessed earth, resulting, appellant contends, from incipient fusion. In the North patent we find a uniform permeation of the flux prior to calcination and the burning process is carried on above the melting point of the flux but not at such a temperature as to deprive the earth of its porous qualities. And, as we have stated, the expert witnesses Morse and Teitsworth both testified that by following the North process a product was produced that could be used as a filteraid and which had an increased flow rate over uncalcined diatomaceous earth, although the product produced by Morse was below that of diatomaceous earth calcined without the addition of a flux. Morse attributed the relatively slow flow rate of the North product produced by him to the fact that in such operation, resulting in the calcining of a brick or block, which is afterwards broken down by milling, there is destruction of some of the diatom shapes to such an extent that filtration properties, which are those of a large proportion of unbroken diatoms, are destroyed. In both the North patent and the patent in suit the final product is a powder although the method of reduction of the burned material to a powder is not described in the North patent. In appellant's patent it is shown that the reduction of the calcined material to powder may be accomplished either by a fan or by grinding. This knowledge was old in the art. In the use of a fan, the structure of the diatom is preserved to a greater extent than if the calcined material was otherwise ground. The test of the identity of processes is not the apparatus used for carrying them out but whether they involve identical or equivalent steps. See Philadelphia Rubber Works Co. v. Portage Rubber Co., 6 Cir., 241 F. 108. In answer to appellant's contention that the purpose of the North process was simply to remove organic matter and bleach the product, it is sufficient to state that, as the patented process in suit was disclosed by the North patent, it was anticipated by that process even though it be assumed that the North patent failed to state, and that North did not know, of the increased flow rate of the product produced. Walker on Patents, 6th Ed., p. 291, § 218; Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co., 220 U.S. 428, 31 S.Ct. 444, 55 L. Ed. 527; Kennicott Co. v. Holt Ice, etc., Co., 7 Cir., 230 F. 157, 160; Lovell Mfg. Co. v. Cary, 147 U.S. 623, 13 S.Ct. 472, 37 L.Ed. 307. In regard to the Passow patent it should be noted that in the process there disclosed the diatomaceous earth is combined in an intimate mixture of a flux and clay and calcined to produce a superior filtering material and that the increased filtering qualities of the product is claimed to be due to the sintering of the materials. Appellant contends that the Passow patent is directed to the making of rigid filtering plates while the patent in suit concerns the process of producing a filteraid, a powder, and that the fusion of the material in the Passow patent is more complete than in the patent in suit. It is contended that, because of such fusion, the mixture after calcination could not be milled without injury to the diatom structure. There is evidence, however, that a powder made of the soft material manufactured in accordance with the process of the Passow patent has a flow rate of about three and one-half times that of the uncalcined powder. The fact that Passow may have taught fusion of the materials to a greater degree than the disclosures in the patent in suit does not show lack of anticipation. See, Greene Process Metal Co. v. Washington Iron Works, 84 F.2d 892, supra; Elliott Core Drilling Co. v. Smith, 50 F.2d 813, 816, supra; California Fruit Growers' Exch. et. al. v. Blake, Moffitt & Towne, 19 F.2d 467, supra. The patent in suit merely applies the old process of the Passow patent for producing filter plate to the analogous art of producing filteraid and, therefore, does not disclose invention. Lovell Mfg. Co. v. Cary, 147 U.S. 623, 13 S.Ct. 472, 37 L.Ed. 307. We have not overlooked appellant's argument in regard to the weight to be given the commercial success of a patented invention in determining the validity of the patent. This cannot overcome clear lack of novelty and invention. Thropp's Sons Co. v. Seiberling, 264 U.S. 320, 330, 44 S.Ct. 346, 350, 68 L.Ed. 708; Duer v. Corbin Cabinet Lock Co., 149 U.S. 216, 224, 13 S.Ct. 850, 37 L.Ed. 707; Lovell Mfg. Co. v. Cary, 147 U.S. 623, 635, 13 S.Ct. 472, 37 L.Ed. 307, supra. We conclude that the trial court's finding of lack of invention over the prior art in claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, and 21 of the patent in suit is correct and that such claims are therefore invalid.