Show 11 to T 0 users of the callow pneumatic pneumatic ti c flotat flotation on cell C e I 1 I 1 USERS OF THE CALLOW CELL ARE NATURALLY ass interested IN KNOWING HOW THE DEC ISION OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT IN THE MIAMI CASE WILL EFFECT THEIR INTERESTS AS WE understand THE prevailing OPINION OF JUDGE WOOLLEY IN THE MIAMI CASE S THAT HE HAS interpreted THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE HYDE CASE AS L MEANING S invention resides not alone in the critical proportion of 01 oil but also in air and agitation A AND ND AGAIN in the co action of the critical proportion of oil and air affected by bp an a agitation 9 citation greater than and different from that which had been resorted to before resulting in a fro froth th concentrate of economical value AND FURTHER THAT THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT LIMIT THE PATENT TO agitation by mechanical means BUT TO AGITATION OF A VIOLENT AND persistent KIND it nixes mixes the oil with the metal of the ore this is old then by bp its greater intensity and longer duration it stirs the pulp into a froth THUS THIS DECISION OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS A MOST IMPORTANT BEARING UPON THE ART BECAUSE IT HOLDS THAT THE MIXING OF THE OIL WITH THE MINERAL IS OLD BUT IT LEAVES OPEN THE USE OF OIL IN connection WI WITH TH AERATION CELLS MEANWHILE THE IDEA OF A CRITICAL proportion OF OIL HAS BEEN DISPROVED BY PRACTICE IN SEVERAL MILLS WITHIN A SHORT TIME AFTER IT WAS promulgated JUDGE WOOLLEY SAYS FURTHER concerning THE CALLOW CELL aeration is direct and is not the result of or caused caus ed by bp agitation on the contrary arp agitation results re from aeration and such agitation though present in some measure is not even approximately approximate lp of the violence and duration of the agitation of the patent the operation in the callow cell certainly possesses these bisti distinguishing ngui shing features from operation of the process where aeration is caused by bp agitation THE COURT FURTHER R CONFIRMS THIS IMPORTANT IM T DICTUM BY SAYING if the only p agitation to which wh ich the pulp was subjected after such to mix ix the oil 0 ia and ore m necess agitation as in the prior r art was necessary arp was the agitation of the callow ca cells we would not say sap that that the violent agitation agitation amounted amo anted to or was the equivalent of of the patent dis disclosure disclose ClOs re and constituted infringe infringement men MAY feel ASS THEY DO NOT INFRINGE apparently USERS OF THE C CALLOW ALLOW CELL DESCRIBED IN U S PATENT NO THE METHOD OF AGITATION signed J M CALLOW |