# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Bolkcom v. Carborundum Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_2086%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 425 U.S. 951 ## Text SUPREME GOURT, U © MAR 3 1976 gn the Supreme Court of the United States Ocroser Term, 1975 No 75-1244 WILBUR T. BOLKCOM and WILLIAM E. KNAPP, Petitioners, Vv. THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, Respondent. Petirion For A Wart or Cerriorani To THE Unrrep States Court or APPEALS FOR THE SixtH Cincurt ARLAND T. STEIN THomas C. Wetracn REED SMITH SHAW & McCLAY 747 Union Trust Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Attorneys for Petitioners Financial Press Corporation, Pirtsburgh BLEED THROUGH Ree no RG UTD AC TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Ree SEMEN AAS Cec Gbwhacdccagecd bacteakkias ] JURISDICTION ..... SERS EER MAAS AA KAO A diae ROO EI 2 CPUS TINS CURRIN PURE on vincaccacecccncesancs 2 SEATED GON WOME CaM ok on cena eesdacesuna en 2 REASONS FOR GRANTING REVIEW ............. S I. There Is A Conflict Among The Courts Of Appeals On The Statutory Authority Of The Commissioner of Patents To Grant Reissue Patents With Claims Enlarging Or Narrowing The Scope Of The Claims Of The Original PR ere rey ere ey Pere per re 8 Il. It Is Time To Renew And Vitalize The Doctrine of Equivalents With Its Importance To The Application Of The Patent Laws. The Court Of Appeals Decision Abrogates The Doctrine Of Equivalents Established By This Court To Guarantee To Patentees The Stat- utory Right Of Exclusivity. .................. 16 oe ek + ee er Tey ree ree ry era 22 eae eer ii Table of Citations TABLE OF CITATIONS CASES Crane Packing Co. v. Spitfire Tool & Machine Co. 275 F.2d 271 (7 Cir., 1960), cert. den. Ceres cree. . nua hau cass Ease 14 Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 US. 5 ee reer. Be ee Oe Handel, Application of , 312 F.2d 943 I antics Locka ah ss Naeaie sae kan seca 15 Hartzell Industries, Inc. v. McCauley Industries Corp., 304 F.2d 481 (6 Cir., 1962) ............--- 9 Hazeltine Research Inc. v. Avco Mfg. Corp., 297 F.2d 137 (7 Cir., 1955), cert. den. EEE Sin kG Lae VOD AGSGA SERS AT LEEK 84 05.0 14 Hickory Springs Mfg. Co. v. Fredman Brothers Furniture Co. Inc. et al, 309 F.2d 55 (1975). ...... 13 Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. Tiddings & Lewis, Inc. 452 F.2d 579 (7 Cir., 1971) cert. den. eR ER ey eee ee ee eee 14 Lockwood v. Langendorf United Bakeries, Inc. ee ee a, FU ne Sa ceded dw ccad soe eass 13 Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. United States 81 Ct. Cl. 671 (Ct. Cl., 1935), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 320 U.S. 1 (1943). ...... 21, 22 Maxant Button & Supply Co. v. Sears, Roe- buck & Co., 388 F.2d 912, (7 Cir., 1968).......... 14 McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc. 343 F.2d 381 (10 Cir., 1965) cert. den. 383 U.S. 933 ..... RE Ta Ghat oe aad ae 13, 21 Parker and Whipple Co. v. Yale Lock Co. ne ee ere 11, 12, 14 Riley v. Broadway-Hale Stores Inc. eg gk Fle ae CO Pere rereererererre 13 p BLEED THROUGH OMe 0 arepeee Table of Citations Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters a EE cece ena hsde ca cwan eek K eke Scovill Mfg. Co. v. Goldblatt Brothers, Inc. et al 362 F.2d 777, (7 Cir., 1966) cert. den. 385 U.S. 970... Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. 243 F.2d 136 (4 Cir., 1957) Ge Be I KX bea sks cae ek ca aekis renee Tektronix, Inc. v. United States 445 F.2d SP er | Tigrett Industries v. Standard Industries 397 U.S. 586, CRRre) Ole, Gt Ce ©) ie OE 5. 6s Ack awercaceancn U.S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., BE Ce eerer eee 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, Union Asbestos & Rubber Co. v. Paltier Corp. 298 F.2d 48-51-54 (7 Cir., 1962) cert. den. SE SEN GKGA AA SSD EAD ELA RENES ORIN KA SEARO RADA Weller Mfg. Co. v. Wen Products, Inc. ee Fee CO C8 CA, PE ssa ce csv ancndcanancans Wesseler, Application of, 367 F.2d 838 (CCPA, 1966). . Winans vt. Denmead, 56 U.S. 545 (15 How. 330) SED ice Ww Pel vas eile ie ds ok 6 hack kak ba n'en 6 Ziegler v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 483 F.2d 858 (5th Cir., 1973) cert. den. 414 U.S. 1079... oe. STATUTES Is NEE 6h CGS AKA CR UEW RN COMER Rasa heehaieasa 35 U.S.C. §64 (repealed) ............. 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, EEG ha cK hohe as Kore k an kA chen dkw en naw See GOED ssh ancidscas Oy oh Oo OR 2, ER, i, MIsCELLANEOUS Patent Law Perspectives, Annual Reviews B.1 {1} [b], Dunner, Gambell, and Kayton .......... ive BLEED THROUGH OO | PR TBAT NE Ce LR EE oS one EE LT AAG FE RR HOD aires IN: Jn the Supreme Court of the Lmted States OctrosBer TERM 1975 WILBUR TT. BOLKCOM and WILLIAM E. KNAPP, Petitioners, Vv. THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, Respondent. Petition For A Wart OF Certiorari To THe Unrrep States Court or APPEALS For Tue Sixtu Circuit Petitioners, Wilbur T. Bolkcom and William E. Knapp, ask that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in this case entered on September 30, 1975. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals was entered September 30, 1975, on a hearing held October 5, 1973. The opinion and judgment are reported at 523 F.2d 492 and appended hereto as Appendix A, pp. la-12a. The opinion of the district court was rendered orally at the end of the trial. The opinion and judgment of the district court are unreported and are appended thereto as Appendix B, pp. ]4a-29a, 51a. The findings and conclusions of the district ee el ARNO RDA I NTE « Ne IT Ee NE ARR, as a 4 BRitiiescevccnsee 2 Jurisdiction, Questions Presented and Statement of the Case court consistent with the opinion are also part of Appendix B, pp. 30a-50a. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on September 30, 1975 (Appendix A, p. 12a). A timely petition for rehearing was denied on December 4, 1975 (Appendix A, p. 13a). The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1254 (1). QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the statute governing reissue of patents, §251] of the 1952 Patent Act, can be interpreted to void claims of reissue patents enlarging or narrowing the scope of the claims of the original patent, contrary to the express terms of that statute, by engrafting thereon additional legal criteria created by repealed statute §64, R.S. §4916 (1928). 2. Whether the doc =!~e of equivalents last enounced in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., tcc. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950) can be abrogated by finding incidental differences between one element of a patented combination and a corresponding element of an accused combination where the accused combination is found virtually identical with the patented combination in every other respect and the particular element is found to perform substantially the same function to achieve the same result as the element of the patented combination. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Background: Petitioners, Bolkcom and Knapp, are the coinventors- patentees of United States Patent No. Re. 27,018 (hereinafter Patent ‘018), granted January 5, 1971, and United States Patent No. 3,423,605 (hereinafter Patent ‘605), granted r BLEED THROUGH PA MTNA, 5 OOP IT Woe NR, RTI AON A ae Statement of the Case 3 March 11, 1969. Patent ‘018 is the patent in suit and a reissue of Patent ‘605. A copy of Patent ‘015 is appended hereto as Appendix C, pp. 52a-59a. The invention claimed in the patents is a novel plant for the manufacture of silicon carbide. Silicon carbide was first made in 1891 by Edward Acheson, the founder of respondent Carborundum. It is made by fusing a mixture of silica sand (SiO, ) and carbon (C), such as coke or graphite, in a furnace heated by an electrical resistance core to an extremely high temperature (about 4,000° F) for about 30 hours. From its discovery in 1891 until the advent of petitioners’ invention in 1966, seventy-five years later, all silicon carbide manufactured in North America was made in fixed, immovable furnaces. These stationary furnaces were set in banks of four (4) to six (6), close to one another and to the electrical power source used for firing. The furnaces ina bank were typically operated in a cycle, with one furnace being loaded, one furnace being fired, at least one furnace cooling and one furnace being unloaded. The total cycle took about five to seven days for each furnace. Each stationary furnace requires approximately three days to cool after firing, before the workmen could unload it and load a new charge. Hand labor was used in loading and unloading the furnaces, and the cramped working conditions and high temperatures resulting from the close proximity of the furnaces to each other and to the electrical source made this activity extremely difficult and dangerous. The Invention: The patented invention is built on the concept of using mobile furnaces, mounted on wheels, that could be removed from the electric power source after firing, placed at a distance for cooling and stripping (without totally cooling as with the stationary furnaces), moved to another area of the REID RT aps PET Ne PORE RT RRL NERD SNE SENG IOS Es 80 aiaieiie a ie ee eee 4 Statement of the Case plant for reloading, and again moved to the electrical source tor firing. The invention has the ability of selectively moving each furnace car through the entire cycle—tiring, cooling, stripping and reloading— without interfering in any way with the operating evcle of any other mobile furnace. The selectivity is achieved by a “transfer car or “transfer means”) having a trackway on top, which may be aligned with any trackway in the furnace area, cooling/ strip- ping area or loading area of the plant. The furnace car is selectively moved from one area to another by aligning the trackways on the transfer car with the trackways supporting the furnace car, moving the furnace car onto the transfer car, moving the transfer car with the furnace car on it into alignment with trackways of another area, and moving the furnace car off the transfer car onto the trackways of the other area. The combination invention is described in a detailed summary in both the original and reissue patents as follows: an electrical power source, a main trackway adjacent said power source, a furnace bottom mounted on Wheels on said trackway movable to and away from said power source; said furnace bottom having a substantially flat heat resistant surface, removable sides along each side of said surtace and removable ends on said surface, said sides and ends defining a heating chamber, electrode means in each of said ends, removable connections between said electrode ends and said) power source, a transfer car movable transversely to the main trackway and having a * corresponding trackway adapted to be aligned with the main trackway to receive the furnace bottom wheels and furnace whereby said furnace may be moved transversely to said main trackway, a service area 5 spaced from said main trackway by said transfer car, secondary trackways in said service area receiving said t BLEED THROUGH CRT MONT Wig DS OO RIA MLR AS AMER EEG a ERAS ATR ECU DAT RETRAIN AE RN Ne A AN ACTS. Ae YR ITAL AONE RAR PE UTES TI meee Statement of the Case 3 furnace from said transfer car, loading means at said service area adapted to load said furnace and a cooling and unloading section in said service area spaced from the loading means.” [Appendix C, Col. 1. line 61 — Col. 2, line 9.] Petitioners conceived their invention in 1964. and successfully reduced it to practice in April 1966 at their Springdale, Pennsylvania plant, where they began the commercial production of sieon carbide. After this plant began operations, Petitioners filed an application for Letters Patent that matured into Patent ‘605. The Reissue Patent: Reissue Patent ‘OLS is identical to the original Patent ‘605 except for the addition of claims 11-14. Not one word, number or line of the description in the specification and drawings was changed. And claims 1-10 of Patent ‘O1S are the same as the claims of Patent ‘605. Claims 11-14 enlarged the scope of the claims from the original patent, but only in two substantive respects: First, the requirement that the “transfer car” be movable “on a trackway extending transversely to the main trackway” (claim 1) was removed to make the claim commensurate with the broader description in the specification, above quoted, supra, p. 4. Second, the “transter car” was pre- scribed as a “transter means between the first trackway and the second trackway selectively delivering a furnace car from one to the other” to enable the claims to cover the embodiments “described in’ the | specification — and equivalents thereof” in accordance with 35 U.S.C. $112. The reissue of the patent was spawned when. shortly after the original patent was issued, petitioners learned of respondent's plan to build a mobile furnace plant for making silicon carbide at) Jacksboro, Tennessee Bolkcom and Knapp counseled with their patent counse! and were advised 6 Statement of the Case that their patent was sufficient to cover the proposed plant, as they were advised it would be. The investigation concluded, however, that the patent claims were not adequate to cover the patented combination where the transfer means were ladder tracks, overhead cranes and turntables not supported on trackways; and the reissue resulted. The Accused Combination: Respondent's Jacksboro Plant went into operation in April 1971, shortly after its completion. This marked Carborundum’s first) departure from the — stationary manufacturing plant proposed by Acheson in 1891, despite a continuing search by its skilled personnel for a more facile, economical and efficient way of making silicon carbide. The Jacksboro Plant came about after respondent became fully advised of petitioners’ invention. Bolkcom and Knapp sought to interest Carborundum in licensing or buying their invention. To that end, two of Carborundum’s officials visited the Springdale Plant on May 12, 1967, and were given a copy of the original patent application, then pending. July 5, 1968 is the date of the sketch layout of Carborundum’s proposed mobile furnace plant at Jacksboro. It reveals that Carborundum proposed to use petitioner's combination verbatim with the transfer means that its representatives had seen at the Springdale Plant, namely, a transfer car movable linearly on supporting tracks extending transversely of the trackways for the mobile furnaces. The plant combination actually built at Jacksboro was virtually identical in every respect to the Springdale Plant except that a turntable supported at its periphery on curved trackways extending transversely of the trackways for the mobile furnace was used instead of a transfer car movable P BLEED THROUGH -—-— So ERD NI RT INN ES LM RA I AY Ms I ITI PTE TCS a0 i SIN BS RSC UMRAO Statement of the Case 7 linearly on supporting transverse tracks. The purported reason for the change was that “to utilize a surplus railroad turntable in place of the transfer car previously planned . . . could save us about $90,000.” Decisions Below: The district court held that claims 1-10 of Patent ‘01S (identical to the claims of Patent 605) were valid, but were not literally infringed by the accused combination, even though that combination was virtually identical in all other respects except that it employed a turntable instead of a linear transfer car to achieve selectivity. The district court also found that a turntable was not equivalent to the linear transfer car arrangement. The district court did find that the accused combination with the turntable responded to the broader reissue claims 11-14 with the “transfer means,” but found those claims were invalid under 35 U.S. C. §251] as an “unauthorized enlargement of the disclosure of the patent.” The court of appeals affirmed the decision of the district court finding claims 1-10 of Patent ‘018 valid, 523 F.2d at 498-501. The circuit court again found that the accused plant was “virtually identical with” the patented combination of claims 1-10 “in every other respect [except it] utilized a turntable instead of a transfer car to transport the mobile furnaces,” 523 F.2d at 502, and found that “the turntable does perform substantially the same function as the transfer car” to achieve “the same result,” 523 F.2d at 502,503. But the court declined to overturn the district court's finding of non-equivalence. The court of appeals found that the accused combina- tion with « “turntable apparently falls within the broader reissue claims coverage of a ‘transfer means’,” 523 F.2d at 498. And, on validity of claims 11-14, the circuit court found, 523 F.2d at 497: “Typical of the new claims added, 11-14, is claim 1), which is identical to claim number 1 in substance except De OREN SRW SED REND tek TR Teer aeean, 8 Reasons for Granting Review that it provides for achieving the desired selectivity through the use of a ‘transfer means’ instead of a ‘transfer car on a track transverse to the main trackway.” [Emphasis added. | Yet, the court found claims 11-14 “were an unauthorized enlargment of the disclosure in the original patent” following U.S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Corp., 315 U.S. 668 (1942), and affirmed the finding of invalidity of them. REASONS FOR GRANTING REVIEW I. THERE IS A CONFLICT AMONG THE COURTS OF APPEALS ON THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS TO GRANT REISSUE PATENTS WITH CLAIMS ENLARGING OR NARROWING THE SCOPE OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ORIGINAL PATENTS. This case presents issues of first impression for this Court of substantial general importance with respect to the interpretation of the reissue section of the 1952 Patent Act. This Court has never considered §251, U.S.C. Title 35, governing the reissue of patents. The question in this case is crucial to the validity of hundreds of reissue patents with claims enlarging or narrowing the scope of the original patents. To date, five courts of appeals and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals have adopted conflicting - standards on the propriety of reissuing patents with broadened or limited claims under §251, U.S.C. Title 35. The Seventh Circuit and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals have followed the express language of §251 and r BLEED THROUGH a ee tt 2 7 fates PRT PNT Roe te RAE 2a Ra EET aes § ee ee ot ee ERS EPA AR ELAR IE SO API AS Reasons for Granting Review 9 validated reissue patents “for the invention disclosed in the original patent . . . enlarging [and narrowing] the scope of the claims,” provided “no new matter” was introduced in the application for reissue. The Fourth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, Tenth Circuit and now the Sixth Circuit! have adopted more restrictive standards on reissue of patents. The latter decisions purport to follow U.S. Industrial Chemical, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., 315 U.S. 668 (1942), construing repealed statute §64, R.S. §4916, May 24, 1928. which requires that the reissue patents be “for the same invention” as the original patent. The conflict involves important issues which have not, but should be decided by this Court. Section 251 of the 1952 Patent Act provides for “Reissue of Defective Patents” as follows: “Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly in- operative or invalid, by reason of a defective specifica- tion or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he hada right to claim in the patent, the Commissioner shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended applica- tion, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue. The Commissioner may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents. 1 The Sixth Circuit appeared to construe §251 in accordance with its express language, Hartzell Industries, Inc. v. McCauley Industrial Corp.. 304 F.2d 481 (1962), but adopted a different, restrictive interpretation in this case without reference to its earlier decision. PEER SOMES 8 Man ks NE 10 Reasons for Granting Review The provisions of this title relating to applications for patents shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent. July 19, 1952, c. 950, §1, 66 Stat. 808.” [Emphasis added. | This statute provides that reissue patents can enlarge (within two vears) or narrow the scope of the claims of the original patent where the patentee claimed “more or less than he had a right to claim” in the original patent. Prior to the enactment of 35 U.S.C. §251, a patentee was entitled to a reissue patent under the provisions of §64,° R.S. 2“Whenever any patent is wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, or by reason of the patentee claiming as his own invention or discovery more than he had a right to claim as new, if the error has arisen by inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, the commissioner shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the duty required by law, cause @ patent for the same invention, and in accordance with the corrected specification, to be reissued to the patentee or to his assigns or legal representatives, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. Such surrender shall take effect upon the issue of the reissued patent, but in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are identical, such surrender shall not affect any action then pending nor abate any cause of action then existing, and the reissued patent to the extent that its claims are identical with the original patent shall constitute a continuation thereof and have effect continuously from the date of the original patent. The commissioner may, in his discretion, cause several patents to be issued for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued letters patent. The specifications and claims in every such case shall be subject to revision and restriction in the same manner as original applications are. Every patent so reissued, together with the corrected specifications, shall have the same (continued ) > BLEED THROUGH —— we PO PAAM ore See ie eee ts ae ree Reasons for Granting Review 1] §4916, May 24, 1928 c. 730, 45 Stat. 732. That section did not by its terms provide that a patentee could enlarge the scope of the claims by obtaining a reissue patent. Rather, §64 provided that the Commissioner of Patents “shall . . . cause a patent for the same invention, and in accordance with the corrected specification, to be issued to the patentee . . .’ The “same invention” requirement was last interpreted by this Court in U.S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., 315 U.S. 668, 675-76 (1942). There, the Court held, inter alia, that: “[I]t is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification. It must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.” While this holding was consonant with earlier decisions under prior Patent Acts containing the “same invention” requirement which limited reissue patents enlarging and narrowing claims to strict standards, see, e.g., Parker and Whipple Co. v. Yale Lock Co., 123 U.S. 87 (1887), the decision does not present the standards controlling the reissue of patents under the Patent Act of 1952. Section 64 of the Revised Statutes was repealed by the Act of July 1952, c. 950, §1.66 Stat. 792, which enacted into law a new reissue statute, §251. Section 251 made three (3) effect and operation in law, on the trial of all actions for causes thereafter arising, as if the same had been originally filed in such corrected form; but no new matter shall be introduced into the specification, nor in case of a machine patent shall the model or drawings be amended, except each by the other; but when there is neither model nor drawing, amendments may be made upon proof satisfactory to the commissioner that such new matter or amendment was a part of the original invention, and was omitted from the specification by inadvertence, accident, or mistake. as aforesaid.” [Emphasis added. ] ELINA Sa RRP MI aS ON NN dea AE aT, 12 Reasons for Granting Review important changes from the prior statutory law with its judicial interpretation: 1. It specifically provided that a reissue patent can be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent if the reissue patent is applied for within two years of grant of the original patent; 2. It provided when the patentee claimed “more or less than he had a right to claim in the [original] patent, the Commission shall... reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent” with “the provisions of this title relating to applications for patent... applicable to applications for reissue...” and 3. It eliminated the requirement that the claims of the reissue be “for the same invention” as the original patent. Notwithstanding the change of law effected by §251, certain circuits have continued to restrict reissue patents by engrafting on the express terms of the statute the legal criteria of repealed statute §64 as judicially interpreted. The Sixth Circuit forcefully states the position of these courts of appeals in the present case. Citing and quoting U-S. Industrial Chemicals Co. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., supra, and Parker and Whipple Co. v. Yale Lock Co., supra, the Court found, 523 F.2d at 502: “The Supreme Court has made it clear that this section [§251] is intended only to permit the reissue of a new patent for the same invention as that disclosed in the original patent in order to permit the correction of an innocent inadvertent defect or omission. It is not intended to permit the patentee to broaden the claims of the original patent.” [Emphasis added in part] Applying this enouncement, the court found that the new claims (i.e., claims 11-14) added by reissue were not limited eal > BLEED THROUGH FRAME LGN SMM ARRAN eter Ome SLA Dm RT a EI Neha tk Ae Reasons for Granting Review 13 in scope to the explicit disclosure of the original patent and “were an unauthorized enlargement of the disclosure in the original patent” 523 F.2d at 502. The Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have enounced similar standards governing the reissue of patents. These courts of appeals too do not consider the statutory changes brought by §251. Following U.S. Industrial Chemicals and other decisions under repealed section 64, these courts require that a reissue patent, unlike an original patent, must be limited to the same invention “explicitly disclosed and taught” in the original application for patent: “It must appear upon the face of the original patent that the matter covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original .... The broader claims of the reissue must be more than merely suggested or indicated in the original patent. U.S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc., v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., 315 U.S. 668, 675-676, 62 S.Ct. 839, 844, 86 L.Ed. 1105. As observed in that case, “it is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification.” Riley v. Broadway-Hale Stores Inc., 217 F.2d 530, 532. (9 Cir., 1954) [Emphasis added. } Accord, McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc. 343 F.2d 381, 389 (10 Cir., 1965) cert. den. 383 U.S. 933; Lockwood v. Langendorf United Bakeries, Inc., 324 F.2d 82, 94 (9 Cir., 1963); and Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. 243 F.2d 136, 140 (4 Cir., 1957) cert. den. 355 U.S. 932. On the other hand, the Seventh Circuit has taken the view that §251 “is remedial in intent and should be read liberally”, Hickory Springs Mfg. Co. v. Fredman Brothers Furniture Co. Inc. et al, 509 F.2d 55,61 (1975). That court of appeals has found that the reissue privilege has been broadened by §251 with the limitation remaining that no OR eee NEES BAA OE eT Oa ER ae (atieemtheinaietn ee tt rt => 14 Reasons for Granting Review “new matter” shall be added by way of reissue. Literally applying the statutory provision, the Seventh Circuit has consistently held: “[We are of the opinion that an applicant for reissue may fully describe his original invention and include in his new description and claims not only what was described before, but also what was suggested or implied in the original drawings, specifications and models. Inasmuch as the justified finding of the court was that the reissue patent included only the inherent function and mode of operation of the original patent, it follows that no new matter was introduced.” Weller Mfg. Co. v. Wen Products, Inc. 231 F.2d 795, 800 (7 Cir., 1956) [Emphasis added. } Accord, Hazeltine Research Inc. v. Avco Mfg. Corp. 227 F.2d 137, 143-44 (7 Cir., 1955) cert den. 350 U.S. 987; Scovill Mfg. Co. v. Goldblatt Brothers, Inc. et al, 362 F.2d 777, 779- 80 (7 Cir., 1966) cert den. 385 F.2d 970; Maxant Button ¢ Supply Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 388 F.2d 912, 916-17 (7 Cir., 1968); and Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. Tiddings & Lewis, Inc. 452 F.2d 579, 593 (7 Cir., 1971) cert den. 405 U.S. 1066. See also, Union Asbestas & Rubber Co. v. Paltier Corp. 298 F.2d 48, 51-54 (7 Cir., 1962) cert. den. 369 U.S. 865; and Crane Packing Co. v. Spitfire Tool & Machine Co. 276 F.2d 271, 274 (7 Cir., 1960) cert. den. 363 U.S. 820. Similarly, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) has expressly rejected a restrictive interpretation of §251. Citing U. S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., supra, and Parker and Whipple Co. v. Yale Lock Co., supra, the CCPA observed that “these cases were prior to the enactment of the Patent Act of 1952, which changes the words of the prior law, ‘for the same invention’, to the words above-quoted [‘for the invention disclosed in the original patent’]”, and went on to hold: > BLEED THROUGH Reasons for Granting Review 15 “[I]f the board’s view were to prevail, the reissue statute would be of very little practical effect, for, by elementary principles of claim _ interpretation, whenever an element or other limitation is added to or taken from a claim it becomes a claim to a different invention. Yet the whole purpose of the statute, so far as claims are concerned, is to permit limitations to be added to claims that are too broad or to be taken from claims that are too narrow. That is what the statute means in referring to ‘claiming more or less than he had a right to claim’ ”. Application of Handel, 312 F.2d 943, 948 (CCPA, 1963). [Emphasis added. } Accord, Application of Wesseler, 367 F.2d 838, 847-48 (CCPA, 1966). The Seventh Circuit and CCPA have, therefore, construed $251 to mean that it is enough that the invention might have been claimed in the original patent. Those courts have found that the patentee has the right to reissue a patent to cover the invention disclosed in the original application as fully as he could have in the original application in accordance with “the provisions of this title relating to applications for patent”. Moreover, those courts hold that the patentee is entitled to utilize the remedial provisions of §251 to claim his invention in a reissue of his patent by omitting or adding limitations in the claims provided he can show that claiming “more or less than he had a right to claim” in the original patent was “through error” and added “no new matter”. The present case clearly presents the conflicting positions of the lower courts for decision. Here, the specification, drawings and claims 1-10 of the original and reissue patents are identical. No “new matter” was added. The objection is that the new reissue claims eliminated the requirement that the “transfer car” be movable “on a trackway extending transversely to the main trackway,” and SOND, PL DAR et — SaaasT DBE ~ 0 nthe CORR LS APE A RR Ot Oa 16 Reasons for Granting Review substituted for the “transfer car” a “transfer eans ... selectively delivering a furnace car from one [trackway] to the other [trackway |" in the enlarged claims (claim 11). The former change made the claims of the patent commensurate with the description of the invention in the specification, quoted supra, p. 4 (Appendix ©, Col. 1, line 61 - Col, 2, line 9); and the latter change enlarged the claim consonant with 35 ©OS.C, §$ll2 which ordains that “a means... for performing a specified function... shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Accordingly, the reissue patent in this case enlarged the scope of the claims to cover the “invention disclosed” that could have properly been claimed in the original patent. The claims are valid by the standards applied by the Seventh Circuit and the CCPA. Yet these claims were held invalid as “an unauthorized) enlargement) of the disclosure” by engrafting the restrictive legal criteria of repealed §64. The conflict clearly involves a substantial question of general impact which has not, but should be resolved by this Court. Il. IT IS TIME TO RENEW AND VITALIZE THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS WITH ITS IM- PORTANCE TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PATENT LAWS. THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ABROGATES THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS ESTABLISHED BY THIS COURT TO GUARANTEE TO PATENTEES THE STATU- TORY RIGHT OF EXCLUSIVITY. This case also presents issues of substantial nationwide importance with respect to the viability of the doctrine of equivalents, The doctrine of equivalents was last enounced twenty-five (25) years ago in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Ine. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S, 605 (1950), Since then, » BLEED THROUGH et De a Reasons for Granting Review 17 the courts of appeals have taken diverse positions in applying the doctrine particularly since this Court's decision in Tigrett Industries v. Standard Industries, 397 U.S. 586 (1970), reh. den, 398 U.S, 944". The present case is a classic for denominating equivalence, providing an extraordinary opportunity for the Court to rejuvenate and develop the methodology of the doctrine of equivalents: The facts of the case are relatively simple; the lower courts made all the factual findings necessary for a finding of equivalents adjudged by the criteria of Graver Tank; and vet, the lower court failed to find equivalence based on an incidental difference between one element of the accused combination and a corresponding element of the patented combination. The doctrine of equivalents is a principle of equity that originated over 120 years ago in Winans v. Denmead, 56 U.S. S45 (15 How. 330) (1853). The doctrine provides that even though the accused device or practice does not literally meet the claims of the patent, it nonetheless infringes “if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same wayrto obtain the same result.” Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30, 42 (1929). The reasons for the doctrine were forcefully stated by the Court in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co., supra at 607: “[CJourts have ... recognized that to permit imitation of a patented invention which does not copy every literal detail would be to convert the protection of the patent grant into a hollow and useless thing. Such a limitation would leave room for — indeed encourage — the unscrupulous copyist to make unimportant and insubstantial changes and substitutions in the patent 3 Tigrett Industries cast doubt on this Court's continued acceptance of the doctrine of equivalents because of the amicus brief of the Department of Justice which frontally attacked the doctrine. The decision was affirmed by ad-tod per curiam opinion, with two silent dissenters as well, See Dunner, Gambell and Kayton, Patent Law Perspectives, Annual Reviews, Bl [1 ][b] i NEI Te def 18 Reasons for Granting Review which, though adding nothing, would be enough to take the copies matter outside the claim, and hence outside the reach of law, One who seeks to pirate an invention, like one who seeks to pirate a copyrighted book or play, may be expected to introduce minor variations to conceal and shelter the piracy. Outright and forthright duplication is a dull and very rare type of infringement. To prohibit no other would place the inventor at the merey of verbalism and would be subordinating substance to form, It would deprive him of the benefit of his invention and would foster concealment rather than disclosure of inventions, which is one of the primary purposes of the patent system.” [Emphasis added. | Consonant with these equities, the doctrine of equivalents was “consistently applied by this Court and the lower federal courts...” for almost a hundred years, operating in favor of “the patentee of a secondary invention consisting of a combination of old ingredients which produce new and useful results” as well as the patentee of a pioneer invention, supra at 608. Graver Tank states the methodology to be applied in adjudicating equivalents particularly in combination patents as follows, supra at 609: “Equivalence, in the patent law, is not the prisoner of a formula and is not an absolute to be considered in a vacuum. It does not require complete identity for every purpose and in every respect. In determining equivalents, things equal to the same thing may not be equal to each other and, by the same token, things for most purposes different may sometimes be equivalents. Consideration must be given to the purpose for which an ingredient is used ina patent, the qualities ithas when combined with the other ingredients, and the function which it is intended to perform. An important factor is whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would r BLEED THROUGH ei emeitin ad entenenet thetic et Oe ee cS re aa, -—- RI AES IE Reasons for Granting Review 19 have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was.” [Emphasis added. | The methodology, therefore, is to address substance instead of form, and consider the element of the combination asserted to be an equivalent for the function which it performs and the qualities it imparts “when combined with” the other elements of the combination, and for its known “interchangeability” for the corresponding element of the patented combination, Adjudicated by the Graver methodology, equivalence of the accused combination and the patented combination is clearly established. Both lower courts found that the accused plant was “virtually identical ... inevery other respect” with the claimed combination of the original claims 1-10, except the accused plant “utilized a turntable instead of a transfer car to transport the mobile furnaces,” 523 F.2d at 502. And the lower courts found that “the turntable does perform substantially the same function as the transfer car,” 523 F.2d at 503, and “achieved the same result” in the patented combination, 523 F.2d at 502. Hence, the function the turntable performs and the qualities it imparts “when combined with” the other elements of the patented combination are established. Moreover, the “important element” that “persons resonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability,” Graver, supra at 609, is present. The court of appeals otherwise found in determining validity that the Van Wagenen Patent No. 492,069 “shows a turntable having wheels located at its periphery which ride on a track as the turntable rotates;” and that the German Patent No. 854,207 shows “the groups of furnaces move ... back down the tracks to a turntable where they are positioned to move onto tracks leading to the servicing area,” 523 F.2d at 499. The turntable was, therefore, there ready in the pertinent art me ns RS os 20 Reasons for Granting Review to be substituted once the patented combination became known to respondent on inspection of petitioners’ Springdale plant. It was certainly an imperceptible step to make the furnace car trackway radial rather than parallel and the transverse trackway curved in a circle rather than straight to provide for interchangeability once the patented combination was made known. By the methodology of Graver, equivalence and infringement are, therefore, established in substance by the lower courts’ findings. The court of appeals did not apply the Graver methodology in adjudicating infringement. Although pur- porting to follow Graver, the court overlooked two of Graver'’s most salient admonitions: (i) “It does not require complete identity for every purpose and in every respect”, and (ii) “In determining equivalents, . .. things for [some or] most purposes different may sometimes be equivalents.” Certainly, whether the transfer means selectively moves a mobile furnace from area to area by rotational motion instead of translational motion, along curved transverse tracks instead of straight tracks, or by pivoting about a central pivot instead of with another suitable drive means is of no consequence to the fundamental interrelation and operation of the patented combination‘. It may diminish performance and quality of the patented combination because, as the lower court observed, “the turntable may be limited by the number of tracks” and “only one furnace at a time can be transferred by the turntable,” 523 F.2d at 502. But it is well-settled, equivalence cannot be avoided because the accused method is less efficient and imperfectly practices the patented combination, e.g., Ziegler v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 483 F.2d 858, 868, 871 (5 Cir., 1973) cert. den. 4 The court's statement that “the turntable itself is stationary and transfers the furnances by pivoting around a central point,” 523 F.2d at 303. is internally inconsistent and inconsistent with its previous finding on validity that “the turntable rotates,” 523 F.2d at 499. P BLEED THROUGH 9 OS IR iit Reasons for Granting Review 21 414 U.S. 1079; and McCollough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, supra 343 F.2d at 402. The court of appeals’ decision is also in direct conflict with the application of the doctrine of equivalents in Tektronix, Inc. v. United States, 445 F.2d 323 (Ct. Cl., 1970)°. In Tektronix, one of the patents was directed to an oscilloscope sweep generator circuit for establishing precise timing for the horizontal sweep. It claimed a sweep generator which included, among other things, “a pair of series connected diodes.” The two infringing devices met the details and particulars of the claims fully except that substituted for the diodes in one was a pair of triodes and in the other a pair of pentodes. Although the triodes and pentodes provided some incidental benefits in the circuit, it was clear that the triodes and pentodes were used expressly and primarily for their diode function. The Court recognized that, “Often, diodes, triodes and pentodes are not interchangeable, and thus are not equiva- lents, because of the different operating characteristics in- herent in their construction,” 445 F.2d at 329. In an earlier Court of Claims case, Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. United States, 81 Ct. Cl. 671 (Ct. Cl., 1935), aff'd in part and rev d in part, 320 U.S. 1 (1943), the court had expressly held that diodes and triodes were not equivalents for that invention. In that case, signal amplification, which is not possible in a diode, was a significant and material function for weak radio signals and therefore the amplifying triodes were held “not equivalent in the circuit in question.” 445 F.2d at 329. In Tektronix, however, the court of claims cogently pointed out that it was the diode function of the triodes and pentodes that was the very reason for the use of the pentodes and triodes, “the other differences in their operating features 5 Tektronix is said to be in “facts and law denominating a classic equivalence situation,” Dunner, Gambell and Kayton, Patent Law Perspectives, Annual Reviews B.1 [1][b}. 22 Reasons for Granting Review being not so significant or material as to affect the essential operation of the circuit” 445 F.2d at 329. For the purposes of the claimed invention, therefore, the diodes and the triodes in the circuits did “operate in substantially the same way with substantially the same means to get substantially the same result.” 445 F.2d at 329. Likewise, this case is a classic case for denominating the doctrine of equivalents. Like Tektronix, the substantive findings of equivalence were established by the lower courts. In this case the only act which awaits is legal conclusion of equivalence by this Court in revitalizing and unfolding the methodology of its decision in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co., now twenty-five years removed. CONCLUSION This case presents the Court with an unprecedented opportunity of resolving two questions of substantial general and lasting importance to the patent laws. The first question is one of first impression for this Court, upon which a conflict in decisions among the courts of appeals has arisen. The second question involves a doctrine of tremendous impor- tance to the application of the patent laws sorrily in need of revitalizing after twenty-five years without pronouncement by this Court. The petition should be granted. Respectfully submitted, ARLAND T. STEIN, THomas C. WEeTTACH REED SMITH SHAW & McCLAY 747 Union Trust Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Attorneys for Petitioners March 3, 1976 > BLEED THROUGH --— 2” epee Jn the Supreme Court of the Umted States OcroBer TERM, 1975 no. 75-1244 WILBUR T. BOLKCOM and WILLIAM E. KNAPP. Petitioners. ™ THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, Respondent. APPENDIX To Petition For A Writ oF CERTIORARI TO THE UNirep States Court oF APPEALS FOR THE SixtH Circuit ARLAND T. STEIN THomas ©. WetracH REED SMITH SHAW & McCLAY 747 Union Trust Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Attorneys for Petitioners Financial Press Corporation, Pittsburgh mi enrn LIfe wi scoiu (eetrerrec ye ~- INDEX TO APPENDIX Opinion of the Court of Appeals ..................0005 Judgment of the Court of Appeals ..................... a ia ina eae 6en 44.06408.5680 00 0a CNY GE SED RPUIUOEE © MTE con centers dscceasereecscces Findings and Conclusions of the District Court .......... ee RR A EA en Appendix A 492 w ° £ KEY NUMBER SYSTEM 3 Wilbur T. BOLKCOM and William E. Knapp, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 73-1320. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued Oct. 5, 1973. Decided Sept. 30, 1975. A patent owner filed an action for infringement of a combination patent protecting the invention of a novel plan for manufacture of silicon carbide. From a judgment of the United States 523 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northern Division, A. Sher- man Christensen, J., the plaintiffs ap- pealed. The Court of Appeals, MeCree, Circuit Judge, held, inter alia, that the patent relating to more efficient and ec- onomical means of manufacturing silicon carbide was valid; that the claims of reissue patent were invalid; and that the district court’s finding of fact that the defendants’ turntable was not the equivalent of transfer car used in plain- tiffs’ plant so that there was no in- fringement was not clearly erroneous. Affirmed. 1. Patents S18, 37, 46 There are three essential elements of patent validity: novelty, utility, and nonobviousness. 35 U.S.C.A. §§ 101-103. 2. Patents 2112.1 Every patent issued by the Patent Office carries, at the outset, a presump- tion of validity which is justified by the complexities of patent law and the ex- pertise of the Patent Office. 35 U/S. C.A. § 282. 3. Patents @112.1 Where the most pertinent prior art has been considered by the Patent Of- fice, the presumption of validity is great- ly strengthened; conversely, where ap- plicable prior art has not been considered by the Patent Office such presumption is greatly weakened. 35 U.S.C.A. § 282. 4. Patents @=51(2) In order to anticipate an invention, prior art must have been reduced to use and successfully performed; even though imperfections and commercial difficulties may be revealed by reduction to practice, a device may nevertheless qualify as pri- or art. 5. Patents @=51(2) Since proposals in company memo- randa were never put into practice, they could not be considered as anticipating the patent relating to manufacture of silicon carbide. OE EAE ME RENES ER GRIEG PEROT BOERS ITS FEE PIO NIE BI LSE Appendix A BOLKCOM v. CARBORUNDUM COMPANY 493 Cite as 523 F.2d 492 (1975) 6. Patents *45, 49 The utility and novelty of plaintiffs’ invention relating to more efficient and economical means of manufacturing sili- con carbide were demonstrated by undis- puted need of industry for a plant layout that would permit the continuous opera- tion of the manufacturing process by se- lective movement of furnaces throughout its phases, and by the commercial success of plaintiffs’ plant. 35 U.S.C.A. §§ 101- 103. 7. Patents 36.2(1) Because claimed invention was greater than the sum of its parts and produced a new result, the secondary considerations mentioned by the Su- preme Court, including commercial suc- cess resulting from greatly increased ef- ficiency, were relevant in determining validity. 35 U.S.C.A. § 103. 11. Patents @=18, 37, 46 Since patent relating to more effi- cient and economical means of manufac- 1% turing silicon carbide satisfied the re- quirements of novelty, utility, and non- obviousness, the patent was valid. 35 U.S.C.A. §§ 101-108. 12. Patents @141(1, 3) The statute relating to reissue of de- fective patents is intended only to per- mit the reissue of a new patent for the same invention as that disclosed in origi- nal patent in order to permit the correc- tion of an innocent inadvertent defect or omission; it is not intended to permit the patentee to broaden the claims of the original patent; the new description of claims may not properly include addi- tions to invention which were not de- scribed, suggested, nor substantially indi- cated in the original specifications, draw- ings, or patent office model. 35 U.S.C.A. § 251. 13. Patents Appendix B Opinion. reflected in six sentences as follows, quote: “With refer- ence to the last witness there were other reasons that might put him in a little stronger status as an expert or as a witness in a proper sense” period. “He didn’t pre- pare the applications involved” period. “There is some suggestion in the pleadings, if not in the pretrial order, that the defendant makes some claim of deceptive intent of some consequence beyond mere omission in any event, particularly with regard to the last letter where point has been made that it was written in disclosure of prior art before the original patent issued” period. “There may not be a hole in the record as to whether any sub- sequent failure to re-issue patent on the reliance upon the original patent had consequences akin to that which might have resulted from deceptive intent.” I think ‘‘on” should have been “if”, then it makes sense. I solace my shock in reading those barbaric long sentences with the thought that perhaps I didn’t pause sufficiently between the sentences. And the Reporter can assume that he wasn’t suppossed to break it up into sentences because of the words running out too thought- lessly. [657] Be charitable when you read these transcripts. If my words could fall as brightly and crisply minted as counsel’s do on the record, it would indeed be great. The explanation of this means of deciding the case, and the clarifying questions and discussions that I have participated in, or invited, stems from my history as a trial attorney. When, in the early years of practice before a fine Judge, who decided cases simply by a grunt, I never SEBEL NS BS ICO, LO IAI IR SELEY SPEND l5a TSAIULE DBAS GES SSA ER CEE UE OEE SSM BLEED THROUGH Appendix B Opinion. knew what was in his mind. And months after I might find that I was talking to points that didn’t interest him at all, and that he decided on the case on somet hing that hadn’t occurred to me. When I took the Bench I made up my mind that I would never leave counsel in that position. So, I go to the other extreme. But, I think counsel have the right to know gen- erally the operation of the Court’s mind, so that for good or ill, or validity, or invalidity, the Court has used a general type of thinking to which counsel can come to grips. I think I have at least tried to give you that indi- cation. Furthermore, with regard to the decision itself, I have tried to, whenever feasible, during [658] my later years as a Judge, to follow the evidence through tran- scripts and examination of exhibits as the case goes on so that at the end of the case, in the context of counsel’s arguments, I can at least knowledgeably, according to my lights, come to conclusions. [659] The first case that I attempted that system in, some ten years ago, by interesting coincidence involved an electron furnace. It was a case brought by Mon- santo Chemical Company against the defendant for al- leged violation of trade secrets. I felt that I approached most nearly a knowledgeable decision in that case, and it was an issue of great mo- ment to both sides, than if I had taken the matter under long advisement. I departed from that rule in the case I mentioned yesterday where by reason of counsel’s re- quest that transcript be provided before briefing and l6a BLEED THROUGH Appendix B Opinion. then an extended period of briefing, my decision was reached some year after the trial. If I have achieved the proper result in that case, it would be against a tremendous obstacle for any judge to try to reconstruct a hotly contested case and the evidence with reference to numerous issues out of the context of the trial, and after memory becomes certainly a little dull. Even the re-reading of the transcript, which I did, didn’t give me the assurance that I would have had, if I had done the best I could during the course of the trial, and then at- tempted to reach a decision in context. Now as to the particular plan of decision here. I think I am as fully advised as I reasonably could be [660] expected to be on the law of the case, within my limitations, since I have read, I think, most, if not all of the authorities cited in the original briefs and at least rescanned or read most, if not all, of the authori- ties cited in your proposed conclusions, since I have tried to keep abreast of the exhibits, both in court and in the course of the examination and out of court. I would propose to indicate my basic views on the crucial issues of the case, and then by reference refer to various proposed findings which will be indicated as generally acceptable or unacceptable, subject always to their modification to be harmonious with the views to be now expressed. I will ask counsel for one side or the other, based upon such statement, to redraft proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, submit them to the oppos- ing side, if feasible; since you are both from Pittsburgh, you might discuss or interchange the findings so that BLEED THROUGH f Appendix B Opinion. they are deemed as acceptable as possible as a matter of form, for joint submission to the Court. I state here, and you may rest assured, that your agreement as to form will not be taken as a waiver of any substantive position, because it would be inherent in such a submission that you reserve your substantive [661] positions. : I would like, however, to feel that the findings and conclusions reflected an appropriate record of my deci- sion so that neither side by mere form would be preju- diced. I suggest that you eliminate from the conclusions, even though I indicated adoption of certain conclusions, the citations. I find that counsel often are able to agree upon it, that conclusions are in accordance with the trial court’s determination, but can’t agree upon the citations to support them, each wishing, depending upon the interest, to have a little more effective or a little less effective citations to the conclusion. So let’s avoid that problem. Your citations are re- flected in the record and your proposals, proposed find- ings and conclusions will be on record, so we will have continuing reference to those, together with citations in your trial briefs. We have involved here a combination patent. Mani- festly, we do not deal with a formula in the field of chemistry or mechanical apparatus, but a combination in respect to a manufacturing plant. Such a combination does not lend itself readily to any spectacular or extra- ordinary or unexpected result. But if such rather [662] prosaic combinations are susceptible of such, I can’t Sa PLEED THROUGH Appendix B Opinion. escape the conviction that this is one of them, that this is a combination in which the product exceeds the sum of individual elements. As has been appropriately remarked during the course of the trial, the concept of novelty or invention is a fugitive one in many ways. It is an oversimplifica- tion to say that the heart of the plaintiffs’ invention was the selectivity. It permitted facile and unencumbered selectivity, to permit the treatment in various stages of the material involved in the manufacture of carborun- dum. I agree that it is probably both an oversimplifica- tion and accurate statement to say part of the invention was non-orbital treatment in the course of that process and the utilization of the plant layout. But again, I can’t escape the conviction that plaintiffs did, indeed, invent a new and novel combination which was useful, which was not anticipated by the prior art, and which was not obvious within the contemplation of Section 103. [663] I believe that the defendant’s combinations, so far as indicated by the record, up to the time its agents viewed the plaintiffs’ plant may have been an exact ex- ample of the combinations simply amounted by way of product to the total of its constituent parts. It is now well and good to say that the turntable treatment, or the transfer treatment involved in the pa- tent in suit, or the Jacksboro Plant, would be quite ob- vious to those skilled in the art, but the experts of the companies with the greatest experience in this field didn’t come up with such a combination until the plain- tiffs developed it. 19a BLEED THROUGH Appendix B Opinion. Hindsight can always render matters obvious as we have been frequently reminded in justification both of good and bad decisions on the question of obvious- ness. I can find nothing in the prior art, however, which would render in my considered judgment this invention obvious. The fact itself that having before them the con- cept of mobile furnaces, of transfer cars, of every other idea suggested by the prior art, the defendant com- panies’ experts did not come up with plaintiffs’ inven- tion until it was made and reduced to practice by plain- tiffs, is relevant both to the [ 664] question of the significance of the prior art both disclosed before the Patent Office and undisclosed before the Patent Office and the general problem of obviousness. Up until the time of the plaintiffs’ invention the de- fendant’s ideas appeared practical, promising, and at least in the defendant’s judgment novel. I have read exhibits restricting discussion of these matters because of the new concept that the defendant thought it had, and yet realistically in view of the plaintiffs’ disclosure and the disclosure of the Jacksboro Plant these other ideas seem somewhat cumbersome and primitive. We have talked about the sine qua non of selec- tivity whereby without any interference with any par- ticular furnace, other furnaces in plurality may be moved from the furnacing area into the processing area and returned. It is a rather simple thing in a way but very significant thing within narrow limits. That is the sine qua non. But that isn’t to deprecate the other ele- ments of the combination because it is not an inven- tion simply with respect to that which may well have aie . . WAIL ALLS LICL SI MEE RAI SRI LET EOE TE FACE LOR ELE OER ATS 20a SRA ABE TR Se BD, OT BLEED THROUGH Appendix B Opinion. been anticipated by the prior art in a limited or nar- row sense but the combination itself with that impor- tant clement found [665] no other place represented in the invention. Thus I conclude that in a crowded art the plain- tiffs’ invention, as reflected in the original application, represented a small step, but a significant step, beyond the art and a step that was not obvious in view of the art whether disclosed or undisclosed. The next concept that governed my decision is in the field of equivalents. This is not to say that this next point is governed only by consideration of the doctrine of equivalents because there are other matters relating to the file history and with reference to the very nature of the disclosure of the patent itself which leads to or renders meaningful the same result. [666] The Court: There are other matters relating to file history and with reference to the very nature of the disclosure of the patent itself, which leads to, or renders meaningful the same results. The turntable system involved in the Jacksboro Plant is not the equivalent of the plaintiffs’ invention, whether considered simply in gross or the generality, or whether the turntable device is specifically com- pared with the transfer car element. The most simplified example within my experience of the application of the doctrine of equivalents was in the Sears Roebuck case which went to the Tenth Circuit in which — from the District of Denver, I determined that the mere reversal of parts, so that a member cam- ming on the toggle of a toggle wrench was in essentially the same position as a toggle wrench in which the 2la BLEED THROUGH i A vs ' Appendix B Opinion. member cammed upon another member against the toggle. You can move from that area to more complex comparisons where the doctrine of equivalents applies. But I don’t think that the plaintiffs’ turntable sys- tem — Mr .Webb: You mean the defendant's’? The Court: I should say defendant's turntable sys- tem accomplished the same result in the [667] same way. I grant that it accomplishes the same result of the susceptible of that accomplishment, but it is by an es- sentially different means. No transfer car is used. The furnace car itself becomes the transfer car. There is not a plurality of tracks utilized in connection with the transfer itself superimposed upon a transfer car or a multiple use of a single track. If we could cut loose from the file history of the case, and from the in- herent nature of the plaintiffs’ invention, a pretty good case could be made under the doctrine of equivalency. But, strictly speaking, I don’t think the two means are essentially the same. I think there are important dif- ferences. If the closeness of that problem, however, were the only element in this field, I wouldn’t proceed with quite as much assurance as I feel I can in distinguishing the two means. The expressed and essential nature of the plaintiffs’ invention as disclosed by the specifications, and by the claims, as well as the file history, bring me to the same result. Beyond that, if the plaintiffs’ inven- tion were so broadly interpreted as to read upon the turntable system involved in the Jacksboro Plant, there would be grave doubts in my mind as to [668] its com- pliance with section 103. It would be essentially to fall BLEED THROUGH Appendix B Opinion. into fallacious reasoning in this aspect and too much to take at face value some of the transitory arguments advanced by both parties here. Defendant says that the turntable system is essen- tially different with respect to the issue of infringe- ment from the transfer system disclosed by the patent. There is a temptation to parlay that mere argu- ment into a significant differentiation in the prior art between the turntable approach and the transfer ap- proach. On the other hand, the plaintiff said the turntable was within the disclosure, it was just a matter of formal drafting, that it wasn’t set out in the claims. And if indeed that argument is parlayed to its logical con- clusion, it might follow that this sine qua non that we have been talking about is disclosed in the basic patent was really the equivalent of the old turntable as exem- plified in Bayard. Aside from this—these merely formal points and counterpoints, there is something more basic in the invention of the plaintiff which [669] dictates in my judgment that the plaintiffs’ invention must be nar- rowly construed, and was, indeed, narrowly accepted in the context of the transfer car system. (670) And as so narrowly accepted and construed, rep- resented, as I have indicated, a significant step for- ward, a significant advance in the art in view of all of the art that has been disclosed before the Patent Office or otherwise. In sum I don’t think the turntable was disclosed, as a part of the patented combination, or taught. If it were —— * oe 2 UN TR REI SP ENE EAE NRE IESG ES: - a oane _ = wer Pan ~rasemn Aint POINT CARRIE STEEP TI NTS ENEMIES INE PRR EG NINE SATIS LT i TEE 23a Appendix B Opinion. within the reach of the patent or were an inventive idea, in view of the prior art as such, it was dedicated to the public domain by failure to claim it, and by expressly in the patent application itself and by representation to the Patent Office, tying the invention to the transfer system specifically. The plaintiffs are not in a position to claim that Jacksboro application constituted an infringement of the patent in suit. It goes without saying then in the Court’s view that the re-issue claims, except as reiterating the claims of the original patent, are invalid as constituting an un- authorized enlargement of the disclosures of the pat- ent. And in the context of the issues of this case, it may be that the rationale of this decision would affect other types of application. That question isn’t before me though and whether a ladder type or an overhead con- trol type of application would be a similar [671] exten- sion, I don’t think I am called upon to decide. Except by the essential logic of any position that the Court takes in theory as to these other things, there is certainly no intent at all to make an adjudication of the non-infring- ing nature of any variation except as to that exempli- fied or embodied in the Jacksboro application. I followed to the best of my ability the discussions in connection with Bayard and the German patent. I am inclined to agree generally with plaintiffs, that their disclosure would not and did not render the plaintiffs’ patent as I have interpreted it, anticipated or obvious. Again I returned to the defendant’s embodiment of their ideas of mobile furnaces and transfers, et cetera. ny ae oe 2 Bilas a MR a Rae ‘% ee 18 BLEED THROUGH OGIO E EES EI ee BPE SLi ABEL BALLIOL ABE CORSE ALON ILRI SOS ALIEN : LE LOILIE TE TS LE” CER LOST BLEED THROUGH Appendix B Opinion. With all they knew, all their experience, their specific application of all their research and thinking to the Car- borundum context, plaintiffs’ invention wasn’t obvious to them. They missed it. They had far more than the Examiner would have had before him, if he had had all of the additional prior art before him. I think the ra- tionale of the Examiner’s determination would continue in view of the additional prior art, as well as before it. with respect to the invention as so narrowly interpreted. [672] Coming to the matter of clean hands. which bothered the Court in connection with other points. I was impressed last night with some assumed duty on the part of plaintiffs to render explanation to satisfy any possible or at least reasonable surmise that there could have been deceptive intent or a significant with- holding. I have concluded that, at least to the minimal that could be expected, there has been a showing that the Bayard patent could not be regarded as significant or determinative. [673] I have considered the presumption with regard to that prior art and with regard to the total prior art not disclosed in the Patent Office to have been dissi- pated, that is, the presumption of validity as against that additional prior art. I think the defendant’s counsel is quite right. I have not sought to split hairs on whether it is a mere reduc- tion or a weakening or a dissipation. As far as that prior art is concerned it has been completely dissipated in my view. In any reflection, by looking at the matter realis- tically, I still am of the opinion that invalidity is not es- tablished as a matter of law and obviousness is not es- tablished as a matter of fact. Quite to the contrary. b AES OD REMI? LE LIOR VILE REN ABA LISE BER TES QR SOF LEE Ae . 4 a’ Nw g as —_— : - v 7 ' | | Ny | | ss {I 2 ‘ | “ of | N | , - ad N fa) —J ‘oun NS | . | | INVENTOR S - | W:/bu / (> Incort j i yand W. //iam £ Kapp BN PO. Se eae — FANN TVTY “WoT BOLKCOM ETAL Nee STVIS SILICON CARBIDE FURNACES AND PLANTS Original Filed Feb. 23, 1967 4 Sheets-Sheet 2 52 H J / ) 35 uN Gate ccreacs ee a ce) SS) 2) 1 = = = en 4 iva) Ih --- NH a an nies a i * bh patil aL Hep igh bape pts PHUEH ETE 7 Ww A ! Wh I ie fee beg « + aa or i ee ne wy 4 ee oT hi CHG: Soci: - &- Ip oS ee |! Se a A: ; os ' | _ re /— a T its A\-=-=- sone iS : eee Ee bH~=-—- Jul Li \ she + a | ieee = NV Sieh bs enn N uae A be + 4iis Ry fos Soe TR e mt. ‘ee « pare tae, “+ NI \ Ha wal Hess? Gl athe ab, lanl | Fi F i Ze ; acne rae ae coca: ae i 3 aa | :. a by E - Se ee. . Fa i i ae i 2 & : esr, tre cn oe ee . ; pear Gre ‘ \ ee Pe eee ~s | : 1 oy ar is eS & ! i rs / * af l ‘ RS | | _* ae ' | ¥ | ¢ 4 % { ! -@ | Pi He a. $ “Se! ; ae rit | \ yy ee iis YE cele ae ; Py | 4 9 ee brn mah ! 1 : ii t re 48 ns ! wee F rel atl ! ad I weunpnnehiensetcmeanes 11 ' ' it We Rice aren tip ses Aide our Sen esaciae Gf a eae a BLEED THROUGH *"Y BOUND CLOSE TO EDGE Appendix C 56 UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION | Reissue No. 27,018 January 5, 1971 Patent No. Dated Wilbur T. Bolkcom et al. Inventor(s) It is certified that error appears in the above-identified patent and that said Letters Patent are hereby corrected as shown below: Column 1, line 23, "nd" should read -- and --. Column 2, line 38, "1l6a'"' should read -- l6a --; line 57, ''ll6a"' should read -- l6a --. Column 4, line 29, after "claim" insert -- 1 --. Signed and sealed this 25th day of May 1971. (SEAL) Attest: EDWARD M.FLETCHER,JR. WILLIAM E. SCHUYLER, JR. Attesting Officer Commissioner of Patents a a al ee ae iE STE LE ENED OEE LEE TELL LLL LAE LD DLLEALE LEVEE IEA ONE 1 27,018 SILICON CARBIDE FURNACES AND PLANTS Wilbur T. Bolkcom, Pittsburgh, Pa., and William F. Knapp, Allison Park, Pa., (both ©“ American Metal- lurgical Products Co., 9800 McKnight Road, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15237) Original No. 3,432,605, dated Mar. 11, 1969, Ser. No. 618,034, Feb. 23, 1967. Application for reissue Nov. 20, 1969, Ser. No. 878,283 Int. Cl. HOSb 3/02, 3/62 U.S. Cl. 13—20 14 Claims Matter enclosed in heavy brackets [ ] appears in the original patent but forms no part of this reissue specifi- cation; matter printed in italics indicates the additions made by reissue. ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE A silicon carbide manufacturing plant for manufac- turing silicon carbide in a movable furnace at one area, discharging the furnace in a second area and loading in * a third area. An electrical power source is provided hav- ing a main trackway adjacent the power source with a furnace car movable to and from said power source nd removably connected thereto through electrodes on end panels on the car. This invention relates to silicon carbide furnaces and plants and particularly to a silicon carbide furnace which , can be fired in one position, removed to a second position for cooling and unloading and to a plant incorporating a plurality of such furnaces. In the past silicon carbide has been manufactured in stationary electric furnaces. Such stationary furnace in- stallations usually require four to six furnaces for each transformer in order to utilize the transformer to its maximum efficiency, with one furnace heating, one being unloaded, one loading, and the remainder cooling. This requires very large capital investment in buildings and furnaces. The unloading of such furnaces is quite difficult and tedious because of the adjacent hot furnaces and be- cause of the necessity of using large amounts of hand labor to remove the silicon carbide from the furnace due to the proximity of the adjacent furnaces and the diffi- culty of using mechanical unloading equipment in the restricted floor space available. This also requires that the furnaces be cooled in extraordinary long time before unloading in order to get the temperature down to the point where the hand labor can be effectively used. A , further problem arises in the loading of such furnaces because of the adjacent other furnaces. This means lengthy conveyor belts from the mixing bins to the furnaces or overhead cranes carrying successive bucket loads to the furnace. We have invented a silicon carbide furnace and plant which eliminates these problems and makes it possible to produce a given quantity of silicon carbide in a plant area less than 3 the size of that required by conventional methods. Preferably we provide an electrical power source, a main trackway adjacent said power source, a furnace bot- tom mounted on wheels on said trackway movable to and away from said power seurce; said furnace botiom having a substantially flat heat resistant surface, removable sides along each side of said surface and removable ends on said surface, said sides and ends defining a heating cham- ber, electrode means in each of said ends, removable con- nections between said electrode ends and said power source, a transfer car movable transversely to the main trackway and having a corresponding trackway adapted (PEE J 60 65 70 2 to be aligned with the main trackway to receive the fur- nace bottom wheels and furnace whereby said furnace may be moved transversely to said main trackway, a ser- vice area spaced from said main trackway by said transfer car, secondary trackways in said service area receiving said furnace from said transfer car, loading means at said service area adapted to load said furnace and a cooling and unloading section in said service area spaced from the loading means. Preferably the loading means is a gravity discharge hopper or the like located over a trackway adapted to receive a furnace to be loaded from the trans- fer car. Other loading device and conveying equipment, may of course, be used. The removable ends of said fur- nace are preferably provided with cooling means remov- ably connected to a source of coolant adjacent the power source whereby the electrodes in the ends can be cooled. In a preferred embodiment, the sides are a plurality of side-by-side cast iron panels lined with refractory and removed and replaced by crane, loader or similar lifting device. In the foregoing general description of our invention we have set out certain objects, purposes and advantages of our invention. Other objects, purposes and advantages will be apparent from a consideration of the following de- scription and the accompanying drawings in which: FIG. 1 is a plan view of a silicon carbide plant floor according to our invention; FIG. 2 is a side elevation of a silicon carbide furnace according to our invention; FIG. 3 is a top plan view of the furnace of FIG. 2; FIG. 4 is 2 section on the line IV—IV of FIG. 2; FIG. 5 is a section on the line V—V of FIG. 2; and FIG. 6 is an enlarged fragment elevation of the furnace end and clamping device. Referring to the drawings we have illustrated in FIG. 1 a furnace building floor 10 having three transformer units il, 12, and 13. Adjacent each transformer unit is a pair of trackways 14a-14b, 1$a-15b, and 116a—16b cach made up of spaced rails. A transfer pit 17 is provided at the end of the trackways remote from transformer units and extending transverse to the length of the trackways. Rails 18, 19, 20 and 21 are provided in the pit to carry a trans- fer car 22 mounted on wheels 23 riding on rails 18, 19, 20 and 21. A trackway 24 is mounted on the transfer car 22 level with the plane of trackways 14a-14b, 1Sa-15b, and 16a-16b and adapted to be selectively aligned with any one of said trackways by movement of the transfer car. The transfer car is driven by any of various well- known drive means from end to end of pit 17 to align trackway 24 with the furnace floor trackways. A service area 25 is provided adjacent pit 17 on the side opposite furnace floor 10. The service area is provided with a strip- ping floor 26 having a trackway 27 on the same plane as trackways 14a-14b, 15a-15b, and 16a-16b. A loading floor 28 is also provided in service area 25 and it too is provided with a trackway 29 on the same plane as track- ways 14a-14b, 1Sa-1Sb, and 116a-16b. Both trackways 27 and 29 terminate at pit 17 so that trackway 24 on transfer car 22 may be aligned with them. An overhead loading hopper (not shown) is provided adjacent track- way 29 to discharge by gravity over trackway 29. A furnace car 100 having a furnace bottom 30 mounted on wheels 31 is adapted to move on wheels 31 on the several trackways I4a-I4b, 15a-15b, 16a—16b, 24, 27 and 29. A heat resistant su:face 32 is provided on the bot- tom 30. This surface may be of cast concrete, brick or any of various well-known refractory materials. Identical end panels 33 are removably mounted on each end of the bottom 30. These end panels ure made up of a sieel frame 34 carrying a cast conciete end member 3§ having a LLL PAN ALOIS PES LARP te po refractory face 36 of high temperature brick or like refractory material and provided with an opening 37 re- ceiving an electrode 38. A plurality of removable side panels 40 extend along each side of the bottom between the two end panels 33 to form a trouzh-like receptacle. The side panels 40 ire made up of an inclined bottom plate 41 and vertical side plate 42 of cast iron or like material carried by a sup- porting frame 43. The bottom plate 41 and side plate 42 are lined with refractory brick 44. The two Fottom plates 41 from opposite sides meet generally at the center line of bottom surface 32 to form a generally U-shaped bhot- tom on the receptacle. The electrodes 38 are connected to transformers 11, 12 or 13 by means of cables 50 and busbars 50a, each busbar serving a pair of furnaces, and removable electrode clamps 51. The clamps 51 are prefer- ably water cooled by water introduced into passages in the clamps by water line 52. The operation of the plant and furnace of our invention is as follows. The end panels 33 with electrodes 38 mounted in openings 37 are placed on bottom surface 32. The side panels 40 are then placed on bottom surface 32 to complete the furnace. The end panels and side panels may be placed in position by a high-lift, overhead crane, traveling floor crane or like device. This work is done on the trackway 27 on the stripping floor. The furnace car is then moved from trackway 27 onto trackway 24 on transfer car 22 by means of a high-lift, a winch and cable or any of well known means. The transfer car 22 is then moved to trackway 29 where the furnace car is moved onto trackway 29 and loaded by gravity. The furnace charge is a conventional charge for the Acheson process, i.e., silica and carbon around a carbon electrode core. In the meantime a furnace car ready for stripping may be moved into the stripping area as described hereafter. The furnace car is loaded from the hopper previously described or by some other conventional means and is then returned to the transfer car which is moved to one of trackways 14a-14b, 15a—15b, or 16a—16b. The loaded car is moved onto one of the furnace floor trackways to a position adjacent one of the transformers 11, 12 and 13. Clamps 51 are applied to electrodes 38 which are in con- tact with carbon electrode cores 60 of the furnace charge. The electrical current is applied from the transformer along with water coolant for the clamp. When the charge has been heated to the required temperature and time for conventional Acheson process silicon carbide, the elec- trical current is stopped and the clamps are removed from electrodes 38. The clamps are then moved to a furnace car on the next adjacent track of a pair of example 14a— 14b, This adjacent car is then heated while the just com- pleted car cools. Prior to completion of the heating process on the second adjacent car, the first car is re- moved from the furnace floor trackway onto transfer car 22 and from there to trackway 27 on the stripping floor and a newly loaded car position in its place ready to re- ceive the clamps 51 on completion of the second car. When the furnace car is moved onto trackway 27, the side panels 40 are lifted off the bottom surface and the contents of the car pushed off bottom surface 32 onto the stripping floor 26 by means of a high-lift or like device and moved to a storage or loading area. The side panels 40 are replaced and the car is ready to repeat the cycle. The advantage in time saved and labor saved as well as cupital investment in buildings and fixed furnaces by our invention will be obvious to persons familiar with con- ventional silicon carbide plants. Hand labor is substan- tially eliminated in the plant of our invention whereas it makes up a very large part of the conventional practices. Much time is saved because unloading can he done at much higher temperatures by the simple expedient of pushing the completed charge off the flat bottom car sur- face rather than digging it piece by piece from the fixed furnaces of the prior art and loading it in the restricted areas between such furnaces.. nm ? Ar, PORE SPAN I, MoH FSET LED BOF Mie AMS, 2: 20 te Lx 30 4 a] 60 While we have illustrated and described certain preferred embodiments and practices of our invention it will be understood that this invention may be otherwise embodied within the scope of the following claims. We claim: 1. A silicon carbide manufacturing plant comprising an electrical power source, a main trackway adjacent said power source, a furnace car movable on said track- way to and from said power source, a refractory bottom on said car, removable side and end panels on said refiactory bottom of said furnace car, said side and end pancls being interconnected to form a heating chamber on said car, electrode means in cach end panel, removable connections between said power source and electrode means, a transfer car movable on a trackway extending transversely to the main trackway, said transfer car carry- ing a trackway corresponding to said main trackway and alignable with the main trackway receiving the furnace car therefrom, a service area opposite the main track- way and spaced from said main trackway by said transfer car, a secondary trackway on said service area receiving said furnace car from said transfer car trackways, load- ing means in the service arca for loading said heating chamber while on said secondary trackway and an un- loading section in said service area spaced from the load- ing means and receiving a completed furnace charge from said furnace car. 2. A silicon carbide manufactuiing plant as claimed in claim) wherein cooling means are provided on cach elec- trode. 3. A silicon carbide manufacturing plant as claimed in claim 1 wherein the loading means includes an over- head receptacle above a portion of said secondary track- way. 4. A silicon carbide manufacturing plant as claimed in claim 1 wherein a pair of trackways are provided ad- jacent each power source, each trackway receiving a furnace car, 5. A silicon carbide manufacturing plant as claimed in claim 1 wherein said transfer car is movable on tracks in a pit transverse to the main trackway. ; 6. A silicon carbide manufacturing plant as claimed in claim 1 wherein the side panels include an inclined lower portion terminating adjacent the center line uf the car. 7. A silicon carbide manufacturing plant as claimed in claim 1 having clamp means removable engaging said electrode means in each end panel, connections between said clamp means and said source of electrical power, cooling means on said clamp means, a source of coolant, and connections from said source of coolant to said cool- ing means. 8. A silicon carbide manufacturing plant as claimed in claim 7 wherein the cooling means are coolant passages within the clamp means. 9. In a silicon carbide manufacturing plant having an electrical power source, and a main trackway adjacent said power source, the improvement comprising a furnace car adapted to move on said trackway to and from said power source, a refractory bottom on said car, removable side and end panels on said refractory bottom of said fur- mace car, said side and end panels being interconnected to form a heating chamber on said car, electrode means in each end panel. removable connections between said power source and electrode means, a transverse trackway intersecting said main trackway at a level below the main trackway and carrying a movable transfer car having a trackway alignable with the main trackway, a service area spaced from said main trackway by a tramsfer car, a sec- ondary trackway in said service area receiving said fur- nace car from said transfer car loading means in the serv- ice area adapted to load said heating chamber while on said secondary trackway and an unloading section in said service area spaced from the loading means and receiving 75 u completed furnace charge from said furnace car. POR ORM MER I EA ARM TP ORNS CRGOEEY BN SRE A LE tL BRIO TEA eae ee Appendix C 27,018 10. In a silicon carbide manufacturing plant as claimed in claim 9 wherein the electrode connections are provided with cooling means. 11. A silicon carbide manufacturing plant comprising an electrical power source, a main trackway area adjacent said electrical power source, a plurality of spaced apart first trackways on said main trackway area, a furnace car movable on each said track to and from said power source, a refractory bottom on each such car, removable side panels on said refractory bottom of said furnace car, end panels on said refractory bottom, said side and end panels being interconnected to form a heating chamber on said car, electrode means in each end panel, removable con- nections between said power source and the electrode means, a service area spaced from said main trackway area, second trackway on said service area on which said furnace cais are movable, transfer means between the first trackway and the second trackway selectively delivering a furnace car from one to the other, loading means in the service area for loading said heating chamber while on said second trackway and an unloading section in said service area spaced from the loading means and receiving a completed furnace charge from said furnace car. 12. A silicon carbide manufacturing plant comprising an electrical power source, a main trackway area adjacent the electrical power source, a plurality of spaced apart first trackways on the main trackway area, a plurality of furnace cars selectively movable on each said track to and from the power source, a refractory bottom on each said car, removable side panels on the refractory bottom of each furnace car, end panels on said refractory bottom, the side and end panels being interconnected to fo:m a heating chamber on said car, electrode means in each end panel, removable connections between the power source and the electrode means, a service area spaced from the main trackway area, second trackway on the service area on which the furnace cars are movable, a transfer arca intermediate the service area and the main trackway area and trackway means in the transfer area for selectively connecting a track of the main trackway with a track of the service areca whereby a furnace car may be selectively routed for movement between any trackway on the main trackway area and the trackway on the service area. 13. A silicon carbide manufacturing plant comprising an electrical power source, a main trackway area adjacent said electrical power source, a plurality of spaced apart trackways on said main trackway area, a furnace car mov- able on each said trackway to and from said power source, a refractory bottom on each such car, removable side panels on said refractory bottom of said furnace car, end panels on said refractory bottom, said side and end pancls being interconnected to form a heating chamber on said car, electrode means in each end panel, removable con- nections between said power source and the electrode micans, a service area spaced from said main trackway ou ~ oe 20 Se 50 50 6 area, trackway means on said service area on which said furnace cars are movable, transfer means between the main trackway area and the service area selectively de- livering a furnace car from a trackway on one to a track- way on the other, loading means in the service area for loading said heating chamber while on a trackway on said service area and an unloading section in the service area spaced from the loading means and receiving a com- pleted furnace charge from said furnace car. 14. A silicon carbide manufacturing plant comprising an electrical power source, a main trackway area adjacent said electrical power source, a plurality of spaced apart trackways on said main trackway area, a furnace car movable on each said trackway to and from said power source, a refractory bottom on each such car, removable side panels on said refractory bottom of said furnace car, end panels on said refractory bottom, said side and end panels being interconnected to form a heating chamber on said car, electrode means in each end panel, removable connections between said power source and the electrode means, a service area spaced from said main trackway area, trackway means on said service arca on which said furnace cars are movable, translatory track means between the main trackway area and the service area selectively conveying a furnace car from a trackway on one to a trackway on the other, ioading means in the service area for loading said heating chamber while on a trackway or said service area and an unloading section in the serv- ice area spaced from the loading means and receiving a completed furnace charge from said furnace car. References Cited The following references, cited by the Examiner, are of record in the patented file of this patent or the original patent. UNITED STATES PATENTS 2122 Oe) “SIGS: TONE oe cece cco 13—6 20206. SiIOTe BOS anc cckccccccsx 13—1 Dresses F1/19R ~ PRPCNSE 5 none ceneccusn 13—6X 2629,756 2/1953 ‘Witkins et al. ........ 13—33X 200407 11/196 Collm ..<....<...-- 13—34X SORT See EEE ean ncneccecdencoos 13—6 A 355.758 “RRSTOOR. (REO coe oeeescwaxscauas 13—25 3,305,619 2/1967 Mbolstedt et al. _-_---- 13—6UX OTHER REFERENCES The Manufacture of Iron & Steel, vol. 3, Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London, 1960, pp. 83, 84. BERNARD A. GILHEANY, Primary Examiner R. N. ENVALL, Jr., Assistant Examiner U.S. Cl. X.R. 13—33 59a --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_2086%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.