Show H hyde y de oil 01 1 flotation P process iro cess does this is an appeal from the decree of the fourt court below sustaining letters patent no issued to sulman picard and bal lot on november 6 1906 and assigned to S minerals separation ltd and minerals separation american syndicate ltd adl judging the appellant herein to have in fringed the same and enjoining further infringement gement the patent is for new and J useful improvements in ore concentration sits its object t is to separate mats ter from gangue by means of oils and fatty acids which have a preferential affinity for matter in the specifications reference is made to united states letters patent no granted to A E cattermole the cattermole patent specifies that an amount of oil varying from 4 per cent I 1 ito 6 per cent of the weight of matter present is agitated with an ore pulp so as to form granules which can be separated from the gangue the specifications bof of the patent in suit state that the inventors shave have found that if the proportion of oily substance be considerably reduced say to a fraction of I 1 per cent on the ore granulation tion ceases to take place and after vigorous agitation there is a tendency for a part of the oil coated matter to rise jo to the surface of the pulp in the form of a froth or scum and the specifications add the proportion of mineral which floats in i the form of froth varies considerably different ores and with different oily substances and before utilizing the facts above mentioned in the concentration of any particular ore a simple preliminary test is necessary to determine which oily substance stance yields the proportion of froth or scum desired there are thirteen claims in the patent the first is the herein described process of concentrating ores which consists in mixing the powdered ore with water adding a small proportion of an oily liquid having a preferential affinity for matter amounting to a fraction of 1 per cent on the he ore agitating the mixture until the oil boated coated mineral matter forms into a froth and nd separating the froth from the remainder ly by flotation the next three claims specify the quantity of oil as amounting to a fraction of I 1 per cent on the ore the second claim I 1 adds to the first the use of slightly acidified acidifier water the third adds to the second si warming the mixture the fourth adds 0 o the third and removing the oily coating rom oin the mineral the fifth specifies the as oleic acid of a quantity of from to 05 percent per cent on the ore the sixth dds to fhe fifth the use of water containing 1 per cent of sulphuric acid the seventh dds adds warming the mixture to 30 to the ha eighth specifies the use of oleic soap 1 tiOn to produce oleic acid amounting to to 05 per cent the ninth is the process of 0 concentrating powdered ores which consists in separating the mineral from the gangue by coating the mineral with oil in water containing a small quantity of oil agitating the mixture to form a froth and separating the froth the tenth adds to the ninth warming the mixture and the eleventh adds the use of acid the twelfth adds separating the froth from the remainder of the mixture and the thirteenth adds a current of water to carry off the coarser minerals and filtering off the froth and removing the oleic acid by treatment with an alkali the answer of the appellant denied that sulman picard and ballot were the first inventors of the process or that there was any invention described in the patent and denied infringement and alleged that the process described in the patent was old and not that the process s ha had been included in certain patents which were enumerated in the answer the ap appellant pel was adjudged to have infringed nf ringed claims numbered 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 and 12 the appellees appelless app ellees process depends primarily upon the affinity of oil for th the e S portion of powdered ore when mixed with water it is conceded that that affinity and the fact that oil will carry the portions to the surface of the mixture while the rock or gangue will sink have been known for many years that which is presented as new in the patent and as the pivotal discovery on oil which its validity depends is the formation of a froth or scum containing the matter produced by agitation of the pulverized ore in water by the action of oil in a quantity less than 1 per cent of the quantity of ore treated turning to the patents which are adverted to as the prior art we find the following the british patent to haynes no issued in 1860 recommends the use of from 11 to 25 per cent of oil by weight to the finely powdered ore the mixture to be agitated with water either warm or cold until the earthy matter sinks and the metal is gathered by the oil in that process the sunken matter is removed fresh ore is replaced and the operation repeated with the same oil until it will take up no more S matter the united issued to everson states patent no in 1886 specified the use 0 of f oil in quantities varying from 5 to 18 per cen cent t the f first to m make ake the was A miss everson the affinity of the important discovery that the add addition increased by oil forthe for the metal was the description of her of an acid in she states that in the operation process the mass is broken up an and d thoroughly stirred with a provided in water in a vessel not I 1 rinse luech mechanical anical stirrer and having an out outlet letor or outlets at the bottom tor the escape of the water and sand the schwartz united states patent no applied tor for in may 1904 and granted in december 1905 describes a process in which the dry ore is first mixed with enough 0 oil il to make a thick pasty mass and water is thereafter added and the mass is agitated s so 0 as to cause the metallic parti particles cles to float the quantity or of oil to be used is not further specified but it is in the testimony that the schwartz process has been experimentally used with cotton seed oil the quantity used being 36 per cent of 0 ore re treated the united states patent to kirby no was applied for december 14 1903 and granted january 16 1906 the oil used by kirby was kerosene oil in which 5 per cent of bitumen was dissolved one of the claims is as follows the process of separating minerals which consists in mixing together the pulverized mineral material a considerable quantity of water and a solution of bitumen in a hydrocarbon lic liquid luid the proportion of bitumen in solution being substantially ly sufficient to insure the coating and entrainment of the mineral particles parti clea and allowing the same to settle and removing the floating layer of said solution and the mineral particles which have been coated thereby in his specifications he says these materials to be so 4 thorough thoroughly ly ag agitated bated together as to if finely subdivide said solution into small globules glo bules and bring said globules glo bules into contact with substantially all of the pulverized mineral particles which will by preference adhere to them and in describing the means for the agitation he specifies a vertically rotating shaft in the mixing tank which it is said to be rotated rapidly no specific quantity of oil il is ds prescribed but it is stated in the specifications that a sufficient amount of the kerosene and baumen in solution is to be used excellent results being obtained by using one fourth to three fourths as much by weight as ore in the froment italian patent issued may 20 1902 and the british patent to froment issued J june une 4 1903 the invention described is declared to consist of a modification of what is known as the oil process of ore concentration the mo modification deification consisted in releasing gas from the finely powdered ore and adding 11 in flotation of the a suitable oil resulting a oil and metal to the surface froment mentions the use of gas to aid in the flotation of sulphides sulp hides reduced to powder and moistened by a fatty substance in explanation of which the patentee says that if for example in a test tube there is placed 10 gm of ed copper ore with its gangue a gram of lime limestone stones the whole reduced to powder and there is added thereto 30 gm of water a few drops of sulphuric acid and a thin 1 layer ot of ordinary on and the die inix ture la is agitated for a second secona the ot the ahe copper pyle PY le witt win rise nae to 10 the top lop ur or the liquid ahe dihe paten cies or of the appelless appellees app appell ellees tes purchased froment on november 17 1903 the froment Iro ment patent and froment agreed to send all possible in tormo tion together with the plans drawings and model plant to hn england gland for the use of th mhd purchasers this agreement was carriell carried out in december 1913 the instructions which keiu contain the fo following howing ir if the ore contains more than 6 5 per ceni of metallic matter such as copper lead it will be necessary to use a little more oil As a general rule one may assume 1 per cent of oil for ore containing up to 5 per cent of metals 1 per cent of oil for ore containing up to 10 per cent and so on up to ores containing 50 per cent of metallic lead which it was said would require 3 per cent of oil in the instructions the mixing device is described as composed of a cylindrical body made of strong sheet iron riveted with bolts in which two stirring devices work in opposite directions making about revolutions per minute the cattermole process which is referred rel referred erred to in the letters patent in controversy in this suit is presented in two british patents one no and one no both of date december 13 1904 the amount of oil specified in the cattermole process is from 4 to 6 per cent of the weight of mineral matter present in the ore TWE this quantity with the average ores would be less than 1 per cent of the mass treated th fact that the final purpose of the cattermole process is to increase the sinking tendency of the mineral instead of re moving it upon the surface does rift not render that process any less instructive as to the state of the prior art for there are two distinct steps in the treatment of the or ora there is first a violent agitation to cause the oil to gather up the particles as in the case of other oil flotation process then follows a slow smooth stirring of the mass which releases the air from the froth or scum and causes the oil and particles to adhere together and form granules of sufficient size and weight to sink after which the mass a the bottom is drawn off and the particles of sand and gangue therein are forced upward and thus separated from the granules of metal here is described a process in which the quantity of al 01 0 1 l emd approximates the quantity which is mailed balled for by the appellees appelless app ellees ra patent latent tent a fraction of per cent when the cla claims ms and the description of process of the appellees appelless app ellees patent are compared with the patents of the prior art it will be seen that the only material difference is in the smaller quantity of oil which the ap use comparing the appellees appelless app ellees process with the froment process it will be seen that in both powdered ore is mixed with suf focient water to form a freely flowing pulp that while froment recommends the use or oil of from 1 to per cent of the ore by weight the appellees appelless app ellees recommend a fraction of I 1 per cent of oil that froment recommends the use of ordinary oil or a suitable oil while the app elees patent mentions oils fatty acids and olele oleic acid that in both processes there is agitation of the mixture that in both processes a small quantity of sulphuric acid is recommended that in both processes the mixture of all t te e substances is made before the agitation and that in both processes bubbles of air or gas are caught in the sulphides sulp hides in the form of a froth which rises to the surface so also in the kirby patent the various steps of the process are similarly described we find there the pulverization fration of the ore mixing it with water to form a flowing pulp mixing therewith kerosene oil with a small percentage of bitumen violently agitating the mass so as to bring the oil into contact with the mineral particles of the ore causing the oil coated mineral particles to rise and float on the surface of the water while the gangue sinks to the bottom and lastly skimming the floating concentrate from the surface of the liquid but the ap say that the froment patent is a paper patent and that therefore it is to be disregarded A paper patent if it fully describes an invention whether it be a machine device or process is just as effective to show anticipation as a patent which describes an invention which has gone into extensive use for a presumption of and of some utility attends the granting of letters patent packard vs lacing stud co 70 fed 66 E L watrous mfg mag co vs american hardware mfg mag co jul fed national chemical fertilizer company vs swift company federal 87 91 universal winding company vs will ivantic linen company 82 federal van epps vs united box board paper company federal ironclad manufacturing fac turing co vs Dairy mans mfg mag co federal dashiell vs grosvenor V S in telephone cases united states 1 it was said the law does not require that a discoverer or inventor in order to get a patent for a process must have succeeded in bringing his art to the highest degree of perfection it is enough if he describes his method with sufficient clearness and precision to enable those skilled in the matter to understand what the process is and if he points out some practicable way of putting it in operation the fact that the appellees appelless app ellees use a smaller quantity of oil than was used in tho the prior art is not of itself and it is not claimed by them to be sufficient to distinguish their process so as to render it to discover that the desired result may be accomplished with the use of a fraction of 1 per cent of oil when formerly a much larg er quant itly of oil had been used and had been deemed necessary is not an invention or discovery within the meaning of the pat ent laws it is a difference of degree al and id not of kind A change in form proportions proportion sp or degree doing substantially the sarae same thine thin in the same way by substantially the same means with better results is not such indell invention as will sustain a patent roberts ys vs ryer 91 united states in fried krupp altien vs midvale steel company federal the court said but more useful and economical administrative methods however valuable while they may and usually are incident to invention do not themselves constitute invention and in delamar ys vs delamar mining company limited ped fed eral this court referring to the use of zinc dust for the purpose of precipitating mineral in a solution said the right to use the dust being free to all we thin thinh it follows necessarily that all have a right ito adjust the quantity of the material to the necessities of each case and ascer ascertain tabi by experiment or antysis an lysis if need be the quantity that may be required to produce the desired end that such a use cannot be made the subject of monopoly there being involved in it no discovery but only the exercise of ordinary prudence and skill se sea also brady brass company vs ajax metal company federal 84 commercial manufacturing company vs general electric company federal lauman vs urschel white lime company federal tilghman vs Proc proctor toi united states guidet vs brooklyn united states but it is said that the appellees appelless app ellees process is the only froth process and that the processes described in the prior art are the bulk notation flotation or oil buoyancy process we have to inquire therefore what is the oil buoyancy process it is described in the elmore patents no issued june 18 1901 and no issued december 17 1901 and |