| Show to 0 users of 0 t the e callow pneumatic at ic flotation F 0 a i on cell e users sers of the callow cell and thA the process process of flotation carried on in its operation are naturally interested in knowing the present status of such users since the decision of th the united states supreme court in the hyde case prior to that decision judge bradford in the united states district court third circuit held in the action of minerals separation company against miami copper company that miami copper company had infringed the minerals separation patent when using the callow cell an appeal was taken from judge bradfordt Brad fords decision to the united states circuit court of appeals third circuit and the argument of this appeal was heard by the court during the entire week ending in february 1917 As we wc understand it the gist of the argument made by the miami counsel was that the supreme court in its decision in ali the hyde case had limited the minerals separation patent to the kind of agitation and froth described in that patent and that the patent was no longer to be broadly construed as judge bradford had construed it in rendering his decision in other words that the supreme courts decision merely held hyde was an only when using twenty pounds of oil per ton or less in connection with the kind of agitation and making the kind of froth described in the patent they further argued and by demonstration showed to the court that the entire process of flotation as carried on ina in the callow cell was different from that carried on by using the minerals separation apparatus and process until that court renders its decision on this appeal the entire matter remains an open question the decision in the hyde case did not involve the use of the callow cell but in that case air was beaten into the pulp by violent agitation produced by a beater at a high speed whereby a thick permanent and persistent froth was created in that case there was no question of infringement once the court found any of the claims of the patent valid the miami case now before the circuit court of appeals third circuit indirectly raises for the first time since the decision of the hyde case whether the use of less than twenty pounds of oil per ton in the callow cell constitutes an infringement of the minerals separation principal patent I 1 am advised by my counsel that the decision of the supreme mc court in the hyde case is not regarded as in anywise an adjudication th t the claims of that patent are entitled to a sufficiently broad interpretation to include the callow cell in the interest 0 of f the callow cell and its users I 1 would be ZI glad lad to learn of any attempts to stretch the decision of the united states supreme eme court in the hyde case beyond the legitimate import of that decision and to e exchange views with N ali our customers as to the best method of meeting b such attacks any communication on this behalf may be addressed to me at pierpont street salt lake city utah in succeeding issues of this advertisement I 1 expect to 6 give extracts from the briefs presented in the miami case before the circuit court of 0 f appeals which have a special bearing on the subject J M CA CALLOW |
