Transcript of Record — Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde
Supreme Court brief1916
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
(24,396)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1915.
No. 259.
MINERALS SEPARATION, LIMITED, AND MINERALS SEP-
_ARATION AMERICAN SYNDICATE, LIMITED, PETI-
TIONERS,
v8.
JAMES M. HYDE.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
INDEX
Original. Print
ER SET Pee Tee EET eT Tee eee Toe CTT ee a 1
dresses SA rer es ae eee oe ee er ee pee 1 1
“Transcript of record from the district court of the United Siates
= for the district of Montana................ceseeseeeeeeess 1 1
NE EE EET CEL OTe Te Te TE ee ree 2 2
ee Lien aks ee ee Wee K Uad NOs US bs haie OOS ES Owe 12 7
DLL Es so.0o 4.65 ba ss OG SSERLECR Ge we OOKSS Ge Reann 25 14
OS Sa ee ey et eee ee ree 26 15
i CD, oa c:0) sobs awh sin dod, sd p ed Kaetbesbicus 33 18
= 46 25
= Writ of injunction and return...............cccceceeeees 50 28
I EON ss 5'6-04-66.0 o0 04 bo bbe ges ene dewee keene 5 28
Petition for and allowance of an appeal.................. 69 36
ETP EL SCT TOC POT ETP CE SP re a 70 37
Citation on appeal with service............. cc cece eens 73 38
% Condensed statement of eridence................ee cece es 75 39
DU & Derwetter (INc.), PRINTERS, WASHINGTON, D. C., SEPTEMBER 8, 1915.
a
INDEX.
Original. Print
Testimony of Edward H. Nutter................2.¢6. 75 39
Cates. FW. COMMENT, «5.0.05 ecicivcccccs 96 49
RE i Tigo Feb co daecbus cousescens 144 74
Ee enn as ake dora csveswenees 150 7
WOM B. TAMU. once cc ccccceccccccces 190 96
Order as to taking depositions, &c..... Sie eh hnnaes 249 125
Testimony of Henry Livingstone Sulman.............. 253 127
Hugh Fitzaiis Kirkpatrick-Picard....... 295 148
EY Se ee ee ee 314 157
eemeee COG TROOWOL. 6 oc cn cc ccccscces 342 171
Arthur Howard Higgins. ............... 349 174
George Albert Chapman................ 364 181
Allen Crawford Howard................ 415 206
William Henry Ballantyne.............. 426 212
George Lockwood Morris................ 492 243
SD RE SE io cc.nus aenddecdcunnwee 493 244
SE, Th, GE. co icceaveeweweetae 495 245
Se rere rr 496 245
Arthur Weaver Wincey........0.-..00. 497 246
Jobe Ballet (reeniled)... ....c.ccescsccce. 501 248
Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard (re-
WE Beant crcneesanweasa oan ae 250
A. Howard Higgins (recalled) .......... 506 251
ET I a's nancusediseanseeeee 507 251
Charles F. Chandler (recalled)......... 726 357
A. Howard Higgins (recalled).......... 784 386
George A. Chapman (recalled)......... 788 387
Gelpabations We te facts, 0c... ... 26sec nccevss cee. 801 395
Judge's certificate to statement of evidence........... 803 396
Complainants’ Exhibit Assignment, Sulman and Kirkpat-
rick-Picard to Minerals Separation, Limited............ 804 396
Complainants’ Exhibit License Agreement, Minerals Sep-
aration, Ltd., to Minerals Separation American Syndi-
ES a aah eck tenet We Renew eestor ensneeneeenn se 805 397
Complainants’ Exhibit Abstract of Title.................. 813 402
Complainants’ Exhibit Chapman Report, August 16, 1907,
Bie ee TO, GAB. nc onc cane wndeccisecassecesass 813 403
Complainants’ Exhibit Higgins Report, January 4, 1911, Re
sn cas na bnws ecieeS eeenceneeee sen 817 405
Complainants’ Exhibit Froment Description.............. 818 406
Complainants’ Exhibit Translation of Froment Description
and Descriptive Matter on Froment Drawings.......... 825 409
Complainants’ Exhibit Fryer Hill Publication—The “Daily
Herald Democrat,” Leadville, October 30, 1889......... 834 414
Complainants’ Exhibit Criley & Everson Publication (The
Engineering and Mining Journal) ...............eece00- 837 416
Complainants’ Exhibit Statement of Profit, Lazard Ven-
NN chee hhh ree ehe de cceihdesd BAe OO6 Kk 0002400 cerenee 838 416
Complainants’ Exhibit Table of Material and Results,
EE aS chs ss tanks Hone tawes seks seseteeussens 838 416
Complainants’ Exhibit Statement of Expenditures in Agita-
tion-Froth Process.............. eminucals nich ebcwndiese ve 839
INDEX,
Complainants’
American Syndicate in Agitation-Froth Process.........
Complainants’ Exhibit Statement of Tonnage Treated by
Agitation-Froth Process at Broken Hill, Australia......
Complainants’ Exhibit Statement of Profits and Royalties
om Agitation-Broth Process. .......cccccccsccsscccccves
Complainants’ Exhibit Table of Sulphide Corporation Op-
erations with Agitation-Froth Process.............ee86.
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Reports, March
25, 1903—The Cattermole process.............eeceeeees
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, May 5,
IIIS TIPOCION iia netic cabs sacdoseenbeeciase
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report. September
24, 1903—Re Cattermole process..........ceseecceceees
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, November
ee
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & DPicard Report, March 4,
AN EEEE ESR OR REE Rae, oe On Pe tee er ey Bre aren
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, April 19
EEE Stee a eee ee ee ee
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, May 2,
PE CAGE SaaSEh eis eS SORE oA cieSA eae oe ereene ees
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, May 18,
SE stunweeus bain tine Obed Lae Twi as «aed seek wees
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, February
ah GR babes nEcmebin ee das a Weweb meshed you takes y's
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, February
aaah wee yds bse Rs nhc Dewan mses eed omnes
Complainants’ Exhibit Higgins Report, March 2. 1905.....
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, March 3,
SE ARAN Ra ordnns edesCeteu phi ined eee ete sed vi
Complainants’ Exhibit Higgins Report. March 16, 1905....
Complainants’ Exkibit Sulman & Picard Report, May 3,
DP SidwithitthstbwaneneechikistpuedaeekencudseGhs bon ees
Complainants’ Exhibit Cable, Hyde to Hoover, January 20,
NT inc behih iiCas ttsi ote eh 8 Cigig hee inl bi ieeiNh nie hh eri baked ws
Complainants’ Exhibit Cable, Hoover to Hyde, January 21
aati thera inka bei ioe NK les o Re dhd wah eb ladip Wig tibow ost} owed
Complainants’ Exhibit Cable, Hyde to Hoover, January 24
ah aah Eoks Snakes dala ses al aen baboon. coe
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman & Picard Report, February
24, 1910
ee
Complainants’ Exhibit Letter, Minerals Separation to Hyde,
March 2, 1910
SHOOTS HEHEHE EH HERE EEE OHH FORESEES
Complainants’ Exhibit Letter, Hyde to Minerals Separation,
dite a ti tnsica ni inicio haatian Ab Wanna Sli erties & So wid
Complainants’ Exhfbit Nutter Report, December 3, 1910...
Complainants’ Exhibit Cable, Minerals Separation to Hyde,
December 8, 1910
ee ee ee ee a
ee ee rs
Complainants’ Exhibit Hyde Report, January Pe
Exhibit Statement of Expenditures by-
ill
Original. Print
840 = 417
841 418
841 418
842 419
g42 «419
851 423
854 425
858 427
860 429
867 438
874 487
876 438
880 440
885 442
&8s 444
891 446
895 448
899 450
912 457
912 457
913 457
913 458
914 458
918 460
919 461
923 468
lv
INDEX.
Complainants’ Exhibit Memorandum Re Managership of
Minerals Separation American Syndicate, Limited......
Complainants’ Exhibit Letter, Hyde to Minerals Separa-
SERS ATINEN, Eis Re eh iea a ese O ES Sea ee eS te tes
Complainants’ Exhibit Letter, Minerals Separation to Hyde,
PUES: RAMEE 0% <)6 644 Khoa cedaceevas ioe eVameis cee.
Complainants’ Exhibit Extract from Richards’ Ore Dressing
Complainants’ Exhibit Assignment, Froment to Ballot, No-
WE Ris I oi Nek weiner a6 WAT Ue 4 ANS dees ba Cees
Complainants’ Exhibit Froment Italian | a ee ee
Complainants’ Exhibit Translation of Froment Italian
NE asi oe 50689. o 49) OES REK ERMA RS Se eT RO TESORO ERS
Complainants’ Exhibit Drawings and Rind ification of Let-
ters Patent No. 835,120, issued to Henry Livingstone
tS SORE rer Tur head ys wow ter eee a ore
Complainants’ Exhibit Photograph Australian Cattermole
ERSTE SMES TEE yy SA Py he ee Ee a URE adr Oe en ee
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulphide Corporation Relsentment
’ Plant—Photographs 1 to 4, inclusive...............e06-
Complainants’ Exhibit Table of Sulphide Corporation Op-
erations with Agitation-Froth Process..................
Complainants’ Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Let-
ters Patent No. 444,345, patented January 6, 1891, to
2 SS SB SE ere rat ahr oe Sor eee ere yr ee
Complainants’ Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Let-
ters Patent No. 474,829, patented May 17, 1892, to C. B.
NIN ia ee eerie Cia erih odes awa B00 Os KORE OSE CbSS
Complainants’ Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Let-
ters Patent No. 575,669, patented January 19, 1897, issued
Complainants’ Exhibit Drawings ak Specification of Let-
ters Patent No. 763,259, patented June 21, 1904, issued to
Ri oN 55 'n's OR Vp baba 06 6S OK Rew KAas PROCES ROTO
Complainants’ Exhibit Drewing and Specification of Let-
ters Patent No. 763,260, patented June 21, 1904, issued to
os cig. oes «rend 6 Ode We aoa ibe Whe bb
Complainants’ Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Let-
ters Patent No. 787,814, patented April 18, 1905, issued to
Complainants’ Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Let-
ters Patent No. 953,746, patented April 5, 1910, issued to
Complainants’ Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Let-
ters Patent No. 979,857, patented December 27, 1910, is-
tag ge RR a ee eee aie sae bieWas
Complainants’ Exhibit Specification of Letters Patent No.
488, dated February 23, 1860, issued to William Haynes.
Complainants’ Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Let-
ters Patent No. 840, accepted November 23, 1889, issued
to Samuel Bagster Boulton et @l........ccceceecceseces
Original. Print
926 465
929 466
930 467
931 467
933 468
937 471
940 472
943 475
951 480
952 480
956 480
957 481
963 485
973 494
979 500
985 505
991 511
995 515
999 519
1003 523
1009 527
INDEX.
Complainants’ Exhibit Specification and Drawing of Let-
ters Patent No. 7808, accepted January 18, 1906, issued
to Henry Livingstone Sulman et ai............. pe enews
Complainants’ Exhibit Specification of Letters Patent No.
17,328, accepted October 25, 1906, issued to Minerals
BOR REION, TAGES soa oo ists vecccstccsens <cKkneodunces
Complainants’ Exhibit Specification of Lattin Patent No.
23870, accepted November 14, 1911, issued to Minerals
Separation, Limited, e¢ al..............2.. Pee Tee ee
Complainants’ Exhibit Specification and Drawing of Let-
ters Patent No. 23949, accepted November 15, 1911, is-
sued to Kadward Holt Nutter ef ef... 2.2. ccccccvcceses
Complainants’ Exhibit Nutter Drawing Defendant’s Plant.
Complainants’ Exhibit Sulman Drawing ree treaties Re-
Complainants’ Exhibit Drawing Australian Model Plant...
Complainants’ Exhibit Drawing of 1909 and 1910 Agitation-
Froth Plants, the Emu Plant, and Last Charlotte Street
rae eels bs Gensdel Mae Knees Met oes Whe US Cowes re
Complainants’ Exhibit King John’ s Court Standard Plant.
Complainants’ Exhibit: First Tracing Slide Machine..... .
Complainants’ Exhibit Froment Plan.................6. os
Complainants’ Exhibit Froment I nawien a ee ee
Complainants’ Exhibit Young First Circular............ ~
Complainants’ Exhibit Young Advertisement “A”.........
Defendant’s Exhibit Certified Copy of File-wrapper and
Contents of Cattermole, Sulman & Kirkpatrick-Picard
WEN 6ib4 Sapine' dence ewniwenee ube sabe mnaus
Defendant’s Exhibit Certified Copy of Wile-wiesper and
Contents of Sulman, Kirkpatrick-Picard Patent No.
Defendant’s Exhibit Certified Copy of File-wrapper and
Contents of Patent dn Suit No. 835,120.................
Defendant’s Exhibit Extract from “Treatise on Chemistry
Applied to the Manufacture of Soap and Candles”......
Defendant’s Exhibit Hyde Sketch of Experimental Machine
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 345,951, patented July 20, 1886, issued to
RR TRG oe 50'6s swine sad besband —hankenes
Defendant’s Exhibit Specification of Letters Patent No.
348,157, dated August 24, 1886, issued to Carrie J. Ever-
ie enw sense ok ipabecdehevw en ee a ne
Defendant's Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 373,113, patented November 15, 1887, issued
Ste SE: bcc chs cue sasctces pobteten ahsewerbinbaes
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 466,753, patented January 5, 1892, issued to
ORR rer ee ais hike aeibeas
Defendant's Exhibit Drawings and Rpacticedion of Letters
Patent No. 469,599, patented February 23, 1892, issued to
Vv
Original. Print
1017 533
1025 540
1029 542
1037 549
1045 556
1047 556
1048 556
1049 556
1051 556
1054 556
1056 556
1057 556
1058 556
1061 557
1063 558
1064 559
1065 559
1088 572
1090 573
1091 574
1097 579
1101 584
1105 587
1113 592
INDEX.
Original. Print
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 471,174, patented March 22, 1892, issued to
<I Ti A OE Csi op dis cd ac cae usb caeen seb eees
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 653,340, patented July 10, 1900, issued to
POC a Te Pere TEP eT ET Car Crore re ere
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawing and Sipucticution of Letters
Patent No. 676,679, patented June 18, 1901, issued to
OE - Se e s e eee ae
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 689,070, patented December 17, 1901, issued
2 SS Peer TT TEE T Eee re eee ee ee bart wee'ets
Defendant's Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 692,643, patented February 4, 1902, issued to
OE ILE CT CCA TEST OCR ER TTL ET eT ECE ETE
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 729,805, patented June 2, 1903, issued to J. &
Reh RE As See ee ee eee yD ee ee ee ee Poe
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 735,071, patented August 4, 1903, issued to
SERS EERE Ee ee ee ee ee Lee Ee
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 736,381, patented August 18, 1903, issued to
Be erry eee eree See eee ee ere
Defendant's Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 745,960, patented December 1, 1903, issued to
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 768,035, patented August 23, 1904, issued to
SEE Se ad PP Pe Cn or eer PIP ee ee eee
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 771,075, patented September 27, 1904, issued
to C. Kendall....... tM CE CGPS Ee bells h wOe Aes he Meee
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 776,145, patented November 29, 1904, issued
Die ee I re coulvn ses cep oss. 00N oh N obs bbb ce Shae.
Defendant's Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 777,273, patented December 13, 1904, issued
ee ONG bso 555004 vase es see ees bdsunesas seks
Defendant’s Exhibit Specification of Letters Patent No.
777,274, dated December 13, 1904, issued to A. E. Catter-
SS ME PES COTE T OCTET EET ETO COLET OL CEL CTT ere
Defendant’s Exhibit Specification of Letters Patent No.
788,247, dated April 25, 1905, issued to A. E. Cattermole
Se SURG Lor eas ces Sa Kean es eae VOC Ln Ue be eS sabe. ne
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawings-and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 793,808, patented July 4, 1905, issued to H. L.
NS BES ear ee eee eer Pee eee Per ere sue
Defendant’s Exhibit Specification of Letters Patent No.
807,501, patented December 19, 1905, issued to Alfred
1119
1129
1135
1141
1145
1149
1161
1165
1169
1175
1179
1185
1189
1195
1199
1203
595
615
617
626
629
636
647
INDEX. vil
Original. Print
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 807,503, patented December 19, 1905, issued
aM yo xd. .0.d02:b'b bad 5 DOK we Shy anh 00's sb cle a es 1213 667
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 809,959, patented January 16, 1906, issued to
Pe TI C5545 4s Gack dn eh bs babes keene baeeshaseanes 1217 671
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 835,143, patented November 6, 1906, issued to
es NNN Sin nick gi Gas oh ath eave eA sees hee es bh eN kD 1227 680
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 835,479, patented November 6, 1906, issued to
re i Tosa bow Ss ker seu eA Cab ones kh CaN aS 1231 684
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 838,626, patented December 18, 1906, issued
eM Se UE SS SS Saks iad be Ske Mas db eee ede CESAR OUR a RES 1235 687
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawings and Specification of Letters '
Patent No. 879,985, patented February 25, 1908, issued
Senne Bee SRN EE MN a oO cae hbica SoA baas.b pale see ceeds 1241 693
Defendant’s Exhibit Drawing and Specification of Letters
Patent No. 1,022,085, patented April 2, 1912, issued to
EMME Ligh guia palo hs oe odes SaNG Asso hee SOAR Swe 1249 698
Defendant’s Exhibit Specification of Letters Patent No.
12,778, accepted June 4, 1903, issued to Henry Harris
See eee eee ee eae Te eee ee ee ere ree 1257 706
IN 5s 5 des knw bs ais hw Ads a ds OE CR Ca Rais 1261 709
Petition for order extending time for filing record........ 1263 710
Order extending time for filing record................... 1267 712
Caption in United States circuit court of appeals............. 1269 713
Order allowing correction of record and order on argument of
, ee Gans PORTING CANSC, CEC. oo... oc ccccaccccccscncccens 1271 713
NN a a Suc ss 5 esa big urd kw is-0:60 To's Ko va Dds 1272 714
Order directing filing of opinions, etc...............0ccccceuee 1273 714
NN Sse 59 dais 62 As 3055.60 5.0% se ea SSeS bat wets 1274 715
NE Cea Sista cisit's eps oG, 5's VckS$ aak5a Salsa whs ihoducsinoeas 1291 724
MIN So u510 ap iia Saws Khuda aa Re kek wees 1293 725
; Additional authority in support of petition for rehearing...... 1343 747
Order denying petition for a rehearing and staying mandate.. 1363 757
Precipe for transcript of record...............e000. cece’ 1364 758
. NS 5 Vs 660 sxdc deb eich iissed eons Se rene eee coses OOS 759
I as diane Wpbsis is uid Kade helo wen Re dak cen 1367 759
Stipulation as to record on return to writ of certiorari........ 1370 760
3 Gerk’s return to writ of certiorari................cccccecce. 1372 761
6
59
‘
MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET ATL. VS. JAMES M. HYDE. 1
a United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
No. 2346.
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.
(In Three Volumes. )
JAMEs M. Hyper, Appellant,
vs.
MINERALS SEPARATION, LIMITED, and MINERALS SEPARATION
AMERICAN Synpbicate, Limirep, Appellees.
Upon Appeal from the United States District Court for the Dis
trict of Montana.
1 [Names and Addresses of] Attorneys of Record.
Mr. Henry PD. Williams, 76 Williams St., Bishop Bldg., New
York.
Mr. Odell W. McConnell, Helena, Montana, Solicitors and of
Counsel for Complainants and Appellees.
Messrs. Sheridan, Wilkinson, Scott and Richmond, Chicago, Illi-
nois, and
Messrs. Kremer, Sanders and Kremer, Butte, Montana, Solic-
tors and of Counsel for Defendant and Appellant.
In the District Court of the United States in and for the District
of Montana.
No. 1076.
Mingrats SEPARATION, LimiTeD, and MINERALS SEPARATION,
AMERICAN SYNDICATE, LIMITED, Complainants,
vs.
JamMEs M. Hype, Defendant.
Be it remembered, that on the 3d day of October, 1911, a Bill
of Complaint was filed herein, which said bill is in the words and
figures as follows, to wit: (1*)
ae number appearing at foot of page of original certified
1—259
2 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
2 United States Circuit Court, District of Montana, Northern
Division..
In Equity.
MINERALS SEPARATION, LimiTepD, and MrInerats SEPARATION
AMERICAN SYNDICATE, LIMITED, Complainants,
vs.
JAMES M. Hypkr, Defendant.
Bill of Complaint.
To the Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States
in and for the District of Montana, Northern Division:
Minerals Separation, Limited, a corporation duly organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of Great Britain, and an
inhabitant of Great Britain and having its principal office in Lon-
don, England, and Minerals Separation American Syndicate,
Limited, also a corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of Great Britain, and an inhabitant of Great Britain, also
having its principal office in London, England, bring this their
bill against James M. Hyde, of Basin, Jefferson County, State of
Montana, a resident of the state of Montana and an inhabitant of
the Northern Division of the District of Montana; and thereupon
your orators complain and say: (2)
First. That heretofore and before the 29th day of May, 1905,
Henry Livingstone Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-
3 Picard, and John Ballot, all of London, England, did in-
vent and were the original, first and joint inventors of cer-
tain new and useful improvements in Ore Concentration fully de-
scribed in the letters patent hereinafter mentioned, .which inven-
tion had not been known or used in the United States before their
invention or discovery thereof, or patented or described in any,
printed publication in any country before their invention or dis-
covery thereof or more than two years prior to their application for
letters patent of the United States hereinafter mentioned, or in
public use or on sale in the United States for more than two years
prior to their said application, and had not been patented in any
country foreign to the United States on an application filed by
them or their legal representatives or assigns more than twelve
months prior to the filing of their said application for letters patent
of the United States, and had, not been abandoned to the public;
that the said Henry Livingstone Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis Kirk-
patrick-Picard and John Ballot, being as aforesaid the joint in-
ventors of the said invention, did on the 29th day of May, 1905,
make due and formal application to the Commissioner of Patents
of the United States for letters patent of the United States therefor,
in accordance with the then existing laws of the United States, and
duly complied in all respects with the conditions and requirements
of said laws; and thereafter, after due proceedings had, on the
= t- SS er lO
oa - a ee
PFSESEBSST SrSrereoseemnscan an
oe... =
'S' —. Ae, Be 26K OP
oOo fo E~
JAMES M. HYDE. 8
6th day of November, 1906, letters patent of the United States
numbered 835,120, signed by the Assistant Secretary of the
4 Interior and countersigned by the Commissioner of Patents
and sealed with the seal of the Patent Office, all in due form
of the law and bearing date the day and year last aforesaid, were
duly issued and delivered to the said Henry Livingstone Sulman,
Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard and John Ballot, whereby was
secured to them, their executors, administrators and assigns, for
the term of seventeen years (3) from the 6th day of November,
1906, the full and exclusive right of making, using and selling the
said improvements in Ore Concentration shown, described and
claimed in said letters patent, throughout the United States and
the territories thereof, which letters patent are now on record in
the United States Patent Office, and which, or a duly certified copy
thereof, your orators will produce as your Honors may direct.
Second. And your orators further show unto your Honors that
on or about the 7th day of December, 1909, the said Henry Living:
stone Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard and John Ballot,
by an instrument in writing duly executed and delivered by them
and bearing date the last named day, assigned and transferred to
your orator, Minerals Separation, Limited, all right, title and interest
in and to the said invention and letters patent, and that the said in-
strument in writing was duly recorded in the Patent Office of the
United States on or about the 28th day of August, 1911, all of which
will more fully appear by the said instrument in writing with the
certificate of the Commissioner of Patents ready in court to be
produced as your Honors may direct.
5 Third. And your orators further show unto your Honors
that on or about the 10th day of October, 1910, by an in-
strument in writing duly executed and delivered and bearing date
the last named day, your orator, Minerals Separation, Limited,
granted unto your orator, Minerals Separation American Syndicate,
Limited, and your orator, Minerals Separation American Syndicate,
Limited, received and accepted the sole and exclusive right, license,
power and authority to apply, use and exercise in the United States
of America the invention described in the said letters patent No.
835,120 for the term of two years from the said 10th day of October,
1910, together with the option to purchase said letters patent during
said term of two years, all of which will more fully appear by the
(4) said instrument in writing ready in court to be produced as
your Honors may direct.
Fourth. And your orators further show unto vour Honors that
by virtue of the premises your orators became, and now are, the
sole owners of all right, title and interest in and to the said letters
patent and the said invention covered thereby, and all rights therein
Sand thereunder within and throughout the United States, and your
orators show that the rights and privileges secured by the said letters
ent have been generally acquiesced in throughout the United
tes excepting in the instance of this defendant and his con-
federates, and that the said invention described in said letters patent
4 MINERALS SEPARATION, L/fD., ET AL. VS.
is of great value and utility to your orators and the public
6 generally, and that your orators have made the said invention
profitable to themselves and to the public by careful and
elaborate tests of said invention in its application to a wide variety
of ores and by extensive commercial use of the said invention in
different parts of the world, and by numerous demonstrations of
the utility of said invention in the treatment of ores that are mined
and treated in the United States, and that your orators have made
and are making great efforts toward the introduction of said in-
vention into extensive commercial use in the United States; and
that your orators have invested large sums of money in said in-
vention in the demonstrations thereof and the efforts to introduce
the same into commercial use in the United States and in making
the same valuable to the public and to themselves, and that your
orators are able and willing to supply the entire demand for the use
of the said invention throughout the United States, and that your
orators will realize and receive large gains and profits from the said
invention if infringement by the defendant and his confederate
shall be prevented.
Fifth. And your orators further show unto your Honors that
prior to the date of the infringement herein (5) complained of,
the defendant, James M. Hyde, had been for a period of about one
year in the employment of your orator, Minerals Separation, Limited
such employment having terminated on or about February 1, 1911;
that the defendant, when thus employed, was instructed by the
engineers and experts of your said orator in all technical
7 details and particulars as to the said letters patent No.
835,120, and the installation and use of the process of or
concentration constituting said invention; and your orators further
show that the usual manner of conducting the business of using
the said invention is the installation of proper apparatus and the
granting of licenses for using said invention conditioned on the
payment of royalties measured by the output of the said process of
ore concentration.
Sixth. And your orators further show unto your Honors, that th
defendant, well knowing the premises and the rights secured to yout
orators as aforesaid, and contriving to injure your orators and te
deprive them of the benefits and advantages from said invention and
letters patent, did, after the issuance of said letters patent and sine
the termination of the employment of the defendant by your orators
Minerals Separation, Limited, as aforesaid, and before the commence
ment of this suit, as your orators are informed and believe, witho
the license or allowance, and against the will of your orators, and i
violation of their rights and in infringement of the aforesaid letter
patent No. 835,120, unlawfully and wrongfully, and in defiance ¢
the rights of your orators, at the town of Basin, in the County ¢
Jefferson, State of Montana, and within the Northern Division of
District uf Montana, where the defendant has a regular and estal
lished lace of business, and elsewhere in the United States, inst
apparatus for and carry on the use of the said process of or
concentration set forth and claimed in the aforesaid letter
patent No. 835,120, and confederated with others in such in
Sea sa Pf? ao ew eo tm se oO oe pra
Sonrreezs
=
ee JAMES M. HYDE. 5
stallation and use, and is threatening (6) to further induce others to
make such installation and use, all in infringement of your orators’
rights under the said letters patent whereby your orators have been
and still are being deprived duet gains and profits that they might
and otherwise would have obtained, and which have been realized
and enjoyed by the said defendant by and through his aforesaid
unlawful acts and doings.
Seventh. And your orators further show unto your Honors, on
information and belief, that the said defendant has made and re-
ceived, and is making and receiving large profits and advantages
from the infringement of the said letters patent as aforesaid, but to
what extent and how much exactly your orators do not know, and
a discovery thereof.
Might, And your orators further show unto your Honors that the
installation and use of the said invention by the said defendant and
his other unlawful acts in this regard in defiance of the rights of
your orators, have the effect of aiding, encouraging and inducing
others so to venture to infringe said letters patent in disregard of
your orators’ rights.
Ninth. And your orators further show unto your Honors that they
have caused notice to be given to the said defendant of the said
infringement of the rights of your orators in the premises and have
requested him to desist and refrain therefrom, but the said defend-
| ant has disregarded such notices and refuses to desist from
9 said infringement, and has continued after such notice in the
infringement of your orators’ rights as aforesaid.
And inasmuch as your orators: cannot have any adequate relief
except in this Court, and to the end that the defendant may, if he
can, show cause why your orators should not have the relief herein
prayed for, and may, but not upon oath (an oath to the defendant’s
answer being hereby waived) according to his best and utmost knowl-
edge, (7) remembrance, information and belief, full, true, direct and
perfect answers make to all and singular the premises and that the
said defendant may be compelled to account for and pay to your
orators the profits thus unlawfully derived, or which might have been
derived from the violation of the rights of your orators as aforesaid,
a3 well as the damages therefor, and be restrained from any further
violation of said rights, your orators pray that your Honors may
grant a writ of injunction restraining the defendant, his confed-
erates, associates, servants, agents, attorneys, clerks and workmen,
nd every person acting for or on behalf of said defendant, from any
installation or use in any manner of the said patented invention or
any part thereof, in violation of the rights of your orators as aforesaid,
and from encouraging and inducing others to infringe the said let-
rs patent and from defending other infringers of said letters patent
or reimbursing them. the expense of defending against said letters
patent in whole or in part, or otherwise aiding or abetting others to
install or use processes of ore concentration in infringement
10 of said letters patent; and also that your Honors, upon the
entering of a decree for infringement, as above prayed for,
aes MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. V8. bs
may proceed to assess or cause to be assessed, under your Honon’
direction, in addition to the gains or profits to be accounted for b
the defendant, the damages your orators have sustained by reason of
said infringement, and that the amount of said damages may, in
view of the wanton character of the infringement committed, be in-
creased to a sum not exceeding three times the amount thereof.
And your orators pray also for a provisional or preliminary in
junction during the pendency of this suit to the same purport and
effect as hereinbefore prayed in regard to a perpetual injunction, and,
that the said defendant may be decreed to pay the costs of this suit;
and for such further and other relief as the equity of the case may
require, and as to your Honors may seem meet.
May it please your Honors to grant unto your orators (8) a writ of
injunction conformable to the prayer of this bill, and also a writ of
subpoena issuing out of and under the seal of this Honorable Cou
directed to the said defendant James M. Hyde commanding him by
a certain day and under a certain penalty to appear before this Hor
orable Court, then and there to answer the premises, and to abide
by and perform such orders and decrees in the premises as to the
Court shall seem meet, and be required by the principles of equity
and good conscience,
11 And your orators will ever pray, etc.
MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD.,
By 8S. GREGORY, Director.
MINERALS SEPARATION AMERICAN
SYNDICATE, LTD.,
By S. GREGORY, Director.
McCONNELL & McCONNELL,
Solicitors for Complainants, |
HENRY D. WILLIAMS,
Of Counsel.
Unttrep States or AMERICA,
State of New York, County of New York, ss:
Seth Gregory, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is
director of Minerals Separation, Limited, one of the complainant
named in the foregoing bill of complaint, and that he is alsoa
director of Minerals Separation American Syndicate, Limited, th
other complainant named in the foregoing bill of complaint; that h
_ has read the same and knows the contents thereof, and that the sam
is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein allege
on information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to ht
true; and that he (9) verily believes that Henry Livingstone Sulma
Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard and John Ballot were the
first original and joint inventors of the invention set forth
claimed in the letters patent referred to in the bill of complaint.
SETH GREGORY.
ee ott ee
JAMES M. HYDE. 7
12 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of Sep-
tember, 1911. :
[seau. ] : BERNARD COWEN,
Notary Public, New York County.
Filed October 3, 1911. Geo. W. Sproule, Clerk.
And thereafter on Nov. 29, 1911, the answer of defendant was
filed, being as follows, to wit: (10)
United States Circuit Court, District of Montana, Northern Division.
In Equity. No. 1076.
Mixerats SEPARATION, LiMiTED, and MIngeRALs SEPARATION AMER-
| IcAN SynpIcaTE, Limitep, Complainants,
vs.
James M. Hype, Defendant.
Answer.
~The Answer of James M. Hyde, Defendant, to the Bill of Complaint
| of the Complainant, Minerals Separation, Limited, and Minerals
Separation American Syndicate, Limited.
This defendant, now and at all times saving and reserving unto
itself all and all manner of benefit and advantage of exception which
can or may be had or taken to the errors, uncertainties or other im-
perfections contained in the bill of complaint herein, for answer
thereto, or so much or such parts thereof as it is advised it is
13 — material to make answer unto, says as follows:
I.
This defendant is not informed, save by the bill of complaint, that
the complainants, or either of. them, are corporations organized or
existing under or by virtue of the laws of Great Britain, or of any
other country, State (11) or nation, or are inhabitants of Great
Britain, or any other country, having their principal offices in Lon-
don, England, or elsewhere, and therefore neither admits -or denies
the same, but calls for strict proof thereof.
II.
This defendant admits that he is a resident of Basin, Jefferson
County, State of Montana, and an inhabitant of the Northern
Division of the District of Montana.
III.
This defendant, upon information and belief, denies that Henry
Livingstone Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard, or John
8 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
Ballot did invent or- were the original, first or joint inventors of any
new or useful improvements in Ore Concentration described in the
letters patent referred to in said bill of complaint; denies that the
alleged invention set ‘forth in the patent sued upon was not known
or used in the United States before the alleged invention thereof by
the patentees, said Henry Livingstone Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis Kirk.
patrick-Picard and John Ballot; denies that said alleged invention
was not patented or described in any printed publication in any
country before their alleged invention or discovery thereof or
14 more than two years prior to their application for letters pat-
ent of the United States therefor; denies that said alleged in-
vention was not in public use or on sale in the United States for more
then two years prior to their said application for patent, and had not
been patented in any country foreign to the United States on an
application filed by them or their legal representatives or assigns
more than twelve months prior to the filing of their said application
for letters patent of the United (12) States; and denies that said
invention had not been abandoned to the public.
IV.
This defendant admits Henry Livingstone Sulman, Hugh Fitzalig
Kirkpatrick-Picard, and John Ballot obtained letters patent of the
United States No. 835,120, dated November 6, 1906, for alleged im-
provements in ore concentration ; but this defendant denies that said
patentees were the first or joint inventors or discoverers of said alleged
improvements; and denies that the same involved any improvements
in ore concentration ; and denies that they made due or formal appli-
cation to the Commissioner of Patents of the United States for letters
patent of the United States therefor in accordance with the then
existing laws of the United States; and denies that they duly com
plied in all respects with the conditions and requirements of said
laws; and defendant is not informed, and has no knowledge, save by
said bill of complaint, as to whether said letters patent No. 835,120
were signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, and
15 countersigned by the Commissioner of Patents and sealed with
the seal of the Patent Office in due form of law, and therefore
denies the same, and denies that said letters patent secured to said
patentees, their executors, administrators and legal representatives for
the term of seventeen years from the 6th day of November, 1906, ¥
or any period, the full, exclusive, or any right of making, using and
selling the alleged improvement in ore concentration alleged to be
shown, described and claimed in said letters patent, throughout the
United States and the territories thereof; and this defendant is not
informed, and has no knowledge, save by said bill of complaint, that
said letters patent are now on record in the (13) United States Patent
Office, and calis for strict proof of the same.
V.
This defendant is not informed, and has no knowledge, save by
said bill of complaint, that on or about the 7th day of December,
SES Se OOS OC TT lC ll OUC!
BRASS AaHRAaed aso ore ee. 3 eS
by
ef,
JAMES M. HYDE. 9
1909, or at any other time, the said Henry Livingstone Sulman,
Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard and John Ballot, by an instrument
in writing, duly, or at all, executed or delivered by them and bearing
date of the last-named day, or any date whatsoever, assigned and
transferred to the complainant, Minerals Separation, Limited, all, or
any, right, title or interest in or to the said letters patent and inven-
tion, or that the said instrument in writing was duly, or at all,
recorded in the Patent Office of the United States on or about the
28th day of August, 1911, or at any other time, and therefore denies
the same.
16 VI.
This defendant is not informed, and has no knowledge, recollec-
tion or belief, save by bill of complaint, that on or about the 10th
day of October, 1910, or at any other time, said complainant, Min-
erals Separation, Limited, by an instrument in writing duly, or at
all, executed, or delivered, or bearing date of the last-named day, or
any date whatsoever, granted unto said complainant, Minerals Sepa-
ration American Syndicate, Limited, or that said Minerals Separation
American Syndicate, Limited, received or accepted the sole, exclu-
sive, or any right, license, power or authority to apply, use or exercise
in the United States of America the alleged invention described in
said letters patent No. 835,120, for the (14) term of two years, or
any other time, from the said 10th day of October, 1910, or from
any other date, together with the option to purchase said letters patent
during said term of two years, or any other term, or at all, and
therefore denies the same.
VIL.
This defendant is not informed, and has no knowledge, recollec-
tion or belief, save by said bill of complaint, that the said complain.
ants became or now are the sole owners of all, or any right, title or
interest in or to the said letters patent or the said alleged inventions
covered thereby, or any or all rights therein or thereunder within or
throughout the United States, and therefore denies the same (and
this defendant denies the same) ; and this defendant denies that the
alleged rights or privileges alleged to be secured by the said
17 letters patent have been generally, or at all, acquiesced in
throughout the United States, or any part thereof, and denies
that the said alleged invention described in said letters patent is of
great, or any value, or utility to the complainants herein or to the
public generally, or at all, and this defendant denies that the com-
plainants herein have made the said alleged invention profitable to
themselves or to the public by careful, elaborate, or any, tests of said
invention in its application to a wide, or any, variety of ores, or by
extensive, or any, commercial use of the said alleged invention in
different, or any, parts of the world, or by numerous, or any, demon-
strations of the utility of said invention in the treatment of ores that
are mined or treated in the United States, or elsewhere; and denies
that the complainants have made, or that they are making, great, or
10 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. _
any, efforts toward the introduction of said alleged invention into
commercial, or any, use (15) in the United States; and this defend-
ant denies that the complainants have invested large sums of money,
or any sums of money, in said alleged invention in the demonstra:
tion thereof or the efforts to introduce the same into use in the
United States, or in making the same valuable to the public or to
themselves; and this defendant denies that complainants will realize
or receive large gains and profits, or any gains and profits, from the
said alleged invention if this defendant shall be restrained from prac-
ticing said alleged invention.
VIII.
This defendant admits that he was for a period of about
18 one year in the employ of the complainant, Minerals Separa-
tion, Limited, such employment having terminated on or
about February 1, 1911, but this defendant denies that when thus
employed he was instructed by the engineers or experts of the com-
plainant in all or any of the technical details or particulars as to
the said letters patent No, 835,120, or the installation or use of
the process of ore concentration constituting said alleged invention;
and avers that while in the employ of said complainant, Minerals
Separation, Limited, as aforesaid, he was instructed in the practice
and operation of certain processes which had been invented and
discovered long prior to the alleged invention by said patentees of
the process set forth in their said patent, and further avers that
while he was in the employ of said complainant, Minerals Separa-
tion, Limited. he had no knowledge of said United States letters
patent No. 835,120, was not instructed regarding the application
or use of the process set forth in said patent, never saw said process
in operation, and received no information, knowledge, or instruc-
tion from said complainant, Minerals Separation, Limited, other
(16) than information, knowledge and instruction regarding mat-
ters known to the public long prior to the said alleged invention
of said Henry Livingstone Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-
Picard, and John Ballot, or their application of letters patent of the
United States therefor.
IX.
This defendant denies that well knowing, or knowing at all, the
alleged rights secured to said complainants, or contriving
19 to injure said complainants or to deprive them of the ben-
efits or advantages from said alleged invention and letters
patent, he did after the issuance of said letters patent, or at any other
time, in violation of any of the rights of said complainants or in
infringement of said letters patent No. 835,120, or in defiance of
any rights of said complainants at the town of Basin, in the County
of Jefferson, State of Montana, or elsewhere, install any apparatus
for or carry on the use of the process of ore concentration set forth
and claimed in the aforesaid letters patent No. 835,120, and denies
that he confederated with others, or confederated at all, in such in-
stallation or use, or is threatening to further induce others to make
JAMES M. HYDE. il
such installation or use in infringement of complainants’ alleged
rights under the said letters patent; and this defendant denies that
said complainants have been, or still are, deprived of great gains
and profits, or of any gains and profits, that they might or would
have otherwise obtained, and further denies that such alleged profits
of which complainants have been deprived have been realized or
enjoyed by this defendant by or through unlawful acts or doings;
and this defendant admits that he has installed an apparatus and
operated a process at the town of Basin, Montana, for the concen-
tration of (17) ores, but avers that said apparatus and process
consist in the use of certain principles and machines which were
invented and discovered long prior to the said alleged invention
of said patentees, and further consists in certain apparatus and
operations invented and discovered by this defendant, and further
avers that the process practiced by him in the said town
20 of Basin, Montana, does not infringe said letters patent, does
not utilize any information conveyed by said letters patent,
and consists solely in the application of principles which were either
discovered by said defendant or were the property of the public
in the United States.
X.
This defendant denies that he has made and received, or is mak-
ing and receiving, large, or any, profits, or advantages from the
infringement of the said letters patent.
XI.
And this defendant denies that he has installed or used the said
alleged invention set forth in said letters patent, or that he has
committed any other unlawful act in this regard in defiance of
the rights of the complainants, and further denies that he has com-
mitted any acts whatever which have had the effect of aiding, en-
couraging or inducing others to infringe said letters patent in dis-
regard of the complainant’s rights.
XII.
This defendant denies that the complainants have caused any
notice to be given to him of the alleged infringement of the alleged
rights of complainants in the (18) premises, or that the complain-
ants have requested him to desist or refrain therefrom, and this
defendant denies that he has disregarded any such notices, or that
he has refused to desist from infringement of said letters patent,
or has continued such infringement after such notice of complain-
ants’ alleged rights, or at any other time.
21 XIII.
This defendant further says that said Henry Livingstone Sul-
man, Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard, and John Ballot were not
the original first or true inventors of the alleged invention in ore
concentration, which said letters patent No. 835,120 purport to
12 MINERALS SEPARATION, LOD, ET AL. VS,
embrace, or of any material or substantial part thereof; but that,
on the contrary, said alleged invention, and all material and sub-
stantial parts had before their alleged invention been fully and
clearly described or claimed in the following mentioned letters
patent.
Letters Patent of the United States.
348,157, August 24, 1886, C. J. Everson.
466,753, January 5, 1892, E. A. Hockley.
469,599, February 23, 1892, A. M. Rouse.
653,340, July 10, 1900, F. E. Elmore.
676,679, June 18, 1901, F. E. Elmore.
689,070, December 17, 1901, A. S. Elmore.
592,643, February 4, 1902, A. S. Elmore.
735,071, August 4, 1908, G. D. Delprat.
736,381, August 18, 1908, M. F. R. Glogner.
745,950, December 1, 1903, I. F. Good.
768,035, August 23, 1904, G. D. Delprat.
771,075, September 27, 1904, C. Kendall.
776,145, November 29, 1904, C. V. Potter. (197.)
Letters Patent of Great Britain.
488, February 23, 1860, W. Haynes.
12,778, June 5, 1902, Lake (Froment).
22 Also patented or described and contained in other letters
patent, the dates, numbers and grantees of which this de-
fendant is not now able to specify, but prays to be allowed here-
after to add by amendment of this answer or otherwise, if it shall
become necessary.
Also illustrated and described in printed publications, the names
and dates of which defendant is not able to specify, but prays to
be allowed hereafter to add to this answer by amendment or other-
wise, if it shall become necessary.
XIV.
-This defendant avers that for the purpose of deceiving the public
the description and specifications filed by the said patentees in the
Patent Office was made to contain more than the whole truth rela-
tive to their alleged invention or discovery, and more than is neces-
sary to produce the desired effect.
XV.
This defendant avers that the said patentees were not the original
and first inventors or discoverers of any materia! and substantial
part of the thing patented, but that. on the contrary, the process
which their said patent purports to embrace was known and used
by Edmund B. Kirby, of Rossland, British Columbia, Canada, long
JAMES M. HYDE. 3 13
prior to the alleged invention and discovery thereof by said pat-
entees, and that said Edmund B. Kirby introduced knowledge of
said process into the United States in the month of December, 1903,
by filing applications in the (20) United States Patent Office for
patents, upon which applications letters patent Nos. 809,959
23 and 838,626 were granted on January 16, 1906, and De-
cember 18, 1906, respectively.
XVI.
This defendant says that the said patentees, Henry Livingstone
Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard and John Ballot have
admitted that the alleged invention which said letters patent No.
835,120 purport to embrace, and each and every material and sub-
stantial part thereof was old and known to others prior to their
alleged invention and discovery thereof, and that said patentees
made said admissions in the following described letters patent:
Letters Patent of the United States.
793,808, Sulman & Kirkpatrick-Picard, application filed October
5, 1908, patented July 4, 1905.
835,479, Sulman, Kirkpatrick-Picard & Ballot, application filed
May 29, 1905, patented November 6, 1906.
879,985, Sulman, Kirkpatrick-Picard & Ballot, application filed
February 20, 1905, patented February 25, 1908.
Letters Patent of Great Britain.
oi August 6, 1903, Cattermole, Sulman & Kirkpatrick-
Picard.
20,419, September 22, 1903, Sulman & Kirkpatrick-Picard.
5,260, March 13, 1905, Sulman, Kirkpatrick-Picard & Ballot.
19,709, September 29, 1905, Sulman.
26,712, December 21, 1905, Sulman, Kirkpatrick-Picard & Bal-
lot. (21)
XVII.
24 Defendant, further answering, says that the complainants
herein are not entitled to the relief prayed for in their bill
of complaint, without this that there is any other matter, cause or
thing in the said bill of complaint contained, material or necessary
for this defendant to make answer unto, and not hereinbefore suffi-
ciently answered, confessed or avoided, traversed, or denied, is true;
all of which this defendant is ready to aver, maintain and prove
as this Honorable Court shall direct, and pravs to be hence disinissed
with his costs in this behalf most wronefully sustained.
KREMER, SANDERS & KREMER,
Solicitors for Defendant.
SHERIDAN, WILKINSON, SCOTT &
RICHMOND, of Counsel.
Filed Nov. 29, 1911. Geo. W. Sproule, Clerk.
14 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
And thereafter on December 30, 1911, Replication was filed
herein, being as follows, to wit: (22)
In the United States Circuit Court, Ninth Circuit, District of
Montana. :
MINERALS SEPARATION, LiMiTED, and MINERALS SEPARATION
AMERICAN SynpicaTE, Limitep, Complainants,
vs.
JAMEs M. Hype, Defendant.
25 Replication.
The Replication of the Above-named Complainants to the Answer
of the Above-named Defendants.
These replicants, saving and reserving to themselves all and all
manner of advantage of exception which may be had: and taken
to the manifold errors, uncertainties and insufficiencies of the an- j
swer of said defendant, for reply thereunto say that they do and
will ever maintain and prove their said bill to be true, certain and
sufficient in the law to be answered unto by said defendant, and
that the answer of the said defendant is very uncertain, evasive and
insufficient in the law to be replied unto by these replicants with-
out that, that any other matter or thing in the said answer con-
tained material or effectual in the law to be replied unto, and not
herein and hereby well and sufliciently replied unto, confessed or
avoided, traversed or denied is true; all of which matters and things
these replicants are ready to aver, maintain and prove as this Hon-
orable Court shall direct, and humbly as in and by their said bill
they have already prayed.
O. W. McCONNELL,
Solicitors for Complainants.
HENRY D. WILLIAMS,
Of Counsel.
Service of above replication and receipt of copy accepted Dec.
29, 1911.
KREMER-SANDERS-KREMER,
Solicitors for Defendant.
26 Filed December 30, 1911. Geo. W. Sproule, Clerk. (23)
And thereafter on July 10, 1912, Amendment to Answer was
filed herein as follows, to wit:
JAMES M. HYDE. 15
United States District Court, District of Montana.
In Equity. No. 1076.
MINERALS SEPARATION, LIMITED, and MINERALS SEPARATION
AMERICAN SynpicaTE, Limitep, Complainants,
vs.
JaMes M. Hype, Defendant.
Amendment to Answer.
Now comes the defendant, James M. Hyde, and amends his an-
swer in the above-entitled suit in the following manner, to wit:
By canceling that part of his answer following the numeral XIII
and extending from and including the twenty-third line of page 9
of said answer through and including the twenty-second line of
page 10, and substituting therefor the following:
“This defendant further savs that said Henry Livingstone Sul-
man, Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard and John Ballot were not
the original first or true inventors of the alleged invention in ore
concentration which said letters patent No. 835,120 purport to em-
brace, or of any material or substantial part thereof, but that, on
the contrary, said alleged invention and all material and
27 substantial parts thereof had before their alleged invention
been fully and clearly described or claimed in the following
mentioned letters patent: (24) :
Letters Patent of the United States,
345, 951, July 20, 1886, H. Bradford.
348,157, August 24, 1886, C. J. Everson.
466,753, January 5, 1892, E. A. Hockley.
469,599, February 23, 1892, A. M. Rouse.
471,174, March 22, 1892, C. B. Hebron and C. J. Everson.
653,340, July 10, 1900, F. E. Elmore.
676,679, June 18, 1901, F. E. Elmore.
689,070, December 17, 1901, A. S. Elmore.
692,643, February 4, 1902, A. S. Elmore.
729,805, June 2, 1903, J. and L. Stoveken.
735,071, August 4, 1908, G. D. Delprat.
736,381, August 18, 1903, M. F. R. Glogner.
745,960, December 1, 1903, I. F. Good.
768,035, August 28, 1904, G. D. Delprat.
771,075, September 27, 1904, C. Kendall.
776,145, November 29, 1904, C. V. Potter.
777,273, December 13, 1904, A. FE. Cattermole.
777,274, December 13, 1904, A. E. Cattermole, H. L. Sulman
and H. F. Kirkpatrick-Picard.
788,247, April 25, 1905, A. E. Cattermole, H. L. Sulman and
H. F. Kirkpatrick-Picard.
793,808, July 4, 1905, Sulman and H. F. Kirkpatrick-Picard.
_ $09,959, January 16, 1906, E. B. Kirby.
16 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
28 Letters Patent of Great Britain.
488, February 23, 1860, W. Haynes.
12,778, June 4, 1902, Lake (Froment). (25)
Also that prior to the supposed invention or discovery of the al-
leged process patented in said letters patent No. 835,120 by said
Henry Livingstone Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard and
John Ballot each and every material and substantial part of said
supposed invention or discovery so patented had been invented and
used by and was known to the following named persons, and was
fully described in applications for letters patent of the United States
deposited and filed by said persons in the United States Patent Office
prior to the supposed invention or discovery of said alleged pro-
cess set forth in said letters patent No. 835,120 by said Sulman,
Kirkpatrick-Picard and Ballot; that said applications were so de
posited and filed in the United States Patent Office and that letters
patent of the United States were granted upon said applications as
set forth below:
Moritz F. R. Glogner, a resident of Freiburg, in the Kingdom
of Prussia, German Empire, on January 27, 1903, deposited and
filed in the United States Patent Office his application for letters
patent of the United States, and that letters patent No. 736,381
were granted thereon upon August 18, 1903.
Israel F'. Good, a resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, on Oc
tober 1, 1902, deposited and filed in the United States Patent Office
his application for letters patent of the United States, and
29 that letters patent No. 745,960 were granted thereon upon
December 1, 1903.
Guillaume DPD. Delprat, a resident of Broken Hill, Australia, on
January 2, 1903, deposited and filed in the United States Patent
Office his application for letters patent of the United States, and that
letters patent No. 768,035 were granted thereon upon August 23,
1904.
Cosmo Kendall, a resident of Upper Norwood, Surrey, England,
on July 21, 1903, deposited and filed in the (26) United States Pat-
ent Office his application for letters patent of the United States, and
that letters patent No. 771,075 were granted thereon upon Septem-
ber 27, 1904.
Charles V. Potter, a resident of Balaclava, Victoria, Australia, on
January 14, 1902, deposited and filed in the United States Patent
Office his application for letters patent of the United States, and
that letters patent No. 776,145 were granted thereon upon November
29, 1904.
Arthur E. Cattermole, a resident of Highgate, London, England,
on September 28, 1903, deposited and filed in the United States
Patent Office his application for letters patent of the United States,
and that letters patent No. 777,273 were granted thereon upon
December 13, 1904.
Arthur E. Cattermole, Henry L. Sulman and Hugh F. Kirkpat
rick-Picard, all residents of London, England, on March 29, 1904,
JAMES M. HYDE. 17
deposited and filed in the United States Patent Office their applica-
tion for letters patent of the United States, and that letters patent
No. 777,274 were granted thereon upon December 13, 1904.
30 Arthur E. Cattermole, Henry L. Sulman and Hugh F.
Kirkpatrick-Picard, all residents of London, England, on
March 20, 1904, deposited and filed in the United States Patent
Office their appucation for letters patent of the United States, and
that letters patent No. 788,247 were granted thereon upon April 25,
1905.
Henry L. Sulman and 1. —1 F. Kirkpatrick-Picard, residents of
London, England, on October 5, 1903, deposited and filed in the
United States Patent Office their application for letters patent of the
United States, and that letters patent No. 793,808 were granted
thereon upon July 4, 1905. (27)
Alfred Sehwarz, a resident of New York City, New York, on
April 19, 1905, deposited and filed in the United States Patent Office
his application for letters patent of the United States, and that letters
patent No, 807,501 were granted thereon upon December 19, 1905.
Alfred Schwarz, a resident of New York City, New York, on May
27, 1904, deposited and filed in the United States Patent Office his
application for letters patent of the United States, and that letters
patent No. 807,503 were granted thereon upon December 19, 1905.
Edmund B. Kirby, a resident of Rossland, Canada, on December
14, 1903, deposited and filed in the United States Patent Office his
application for letters patent of the United States, and that letters
patent No. 809,959 were granted thereon upon January 16, 1906.
Edmund B. Kirby, a resident of Rossland, Canada, on De-
31 cember 17, 1903, deposited and filed in the United States
Patent Office his application for letters patent of the United
States, and that letters patent No. 838,626 were granted thereon upon
December 18, 1906.”
By canceling that part of the answer following the numeral XVI
and extending from and including the twenty-ninth line of page 11
of said answer through and including the twenty-second line of the
twelfth page thereof, and substituting therefor the following:
This defendant says that the said patentees, Henry Livingstone
Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard and John Ballot have ad-
mitted that the alleged invention which said letters patent No.
835,120 purport to embrace and each and every material and sub-
stantial part (28) thereof was old and known to others prior to their
alleged invention and discovery thereof, and have stated that said
§ alleged invention was the invention of others, and that said patentees
§ made said admissions and statements in the following described
letters patent, and in the applications therefor and proceedings in the
United States Patent Office relating thereto.
Letters Patent of the United States.
793,808, Sulman & Kirkpatrick-Picard, application filed October 5,
1903, patented July 4, 1905.
835,143, Henry L. Sulman, application filed October 20, 1905,
patented November 6, 1906.
2—259
,
18
835,479,
879,985,
32
17,109,
20,419,
5,260,
19,709,
26,712,
It is stipulated that the foregoing amendment to the answer 0
defendant may be entered, provided, however, that should defendant
prevail upon any of the matters set up in said amendment and nof
set up in his original answer, he may not recover costs for any pr
ceedings prior to the deposition of the witness Eugene A. Byrnes.
33
And on July 28, 1913, the opinion of the Court was filed herei
as follows, to wit:
Complainants are owner- and its licensee of United States patent
No. 835,120, for improvements in a process of ore concentration
issued on an application filed May 29, 1905, by said owner’s grantor
Messrs. Sulman, Picard, and Ballot, of London, England, joint i
ventors and patentees, and this suit is for infringement of certait
MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
Sulman, Kirkpatrick-Picard & Ballot, application filed
May 29, 1905, patented November 6, 1906.
Sulman, Kirkpatrick-Picard & Ballot, application filed
February 20, 1905, patented February 25, 1908.
Letters Patent of Great Britain.
August 6, 1903, Cattermole, Sulman & Kirkpatrick-Picard,
September 22, 1903, Sulman & Kirkpatrick Picard.
March 13, 1905, Sulman, Kirkpatrick-Picard & Ballot.
September 19, 1905, Sulman.
December 21, 1905, Sulman, Kirkpatrick-Picard & Ballo
KREMER, SANDERS & KREMER,
Solicitors for Defendant.
SHERIDAN, WILKINSON, SCOTT &
RICHMOND,
Of Counsel. (29)
McCONNELL & McCONNELL,
Solicitors for Complainant.
HENRY D. WILLIAMS,
Of Counsel.
KREMER, SANDERS & KREMER,
Solicitors for Defendant.
SHERIDAN, WILKINSON, SCOTT &
RICHMOND,
Of Counsel.
Filed July 10, 1912. Geo. W. Sproule, Clerk. (30)
United States District Court, Montana.
MINERALS SEPARATION, LIMITED, et al.,
vs.
James M. Hype.
Opinion.
4 ee ee era ae a Ne oe ee ee
—_ eo lee es OO ee
JAMES M. HYDE. 19
claims of said patent by defendant, a former employee of said owner,
and by it trained in the process. The defenses are various grounds
of invalidity hereinafter noted so far as of merit and seriously urged,
d noninfringement.
The iavaniion claimed, in general terms, may be said to be the
discovery in March, 1905, that if a very small and appropriate quan-
tity of an oily substance, ranging around .02% to .5% of the weight
of the ore be added to a pulp of water and finely pulverized ore (the
slimes being helpful and most easily recovered) and the whole
vigorously agitated and thereby thoroughly aerated by great and
excess quantities of air, the metalliferous particles are oiled and ad-
ere in a complete envelope to or of bubbles of the air and
34 rise to the surface of the mixture on cessation of agitation,
forming a strong, coherent and stable froth easily removed.
The process may be aided by heat to more quickly and effectively
disseminate the oily substance through the pulp and bring it into
contact with the metalliferous particles, and may also be aided by a
mineral acid or salt up to 1% thereof of the weight of the ore to
increase the preferential affinity of the oil for metal over (31)
gangue, but not sufficient acid to cause chemical action on the metal,
nor is it intended to generate gas for flotation. The patent specifica-
tion is full, complete and clear to those skilled in the art, and de-
scribes one well-known apparatus of mixing vessels, spitzkasten, etc.,
and the operation of the process therewith.
The claims are general and particular, all calling for oil and agita-
tion to produce a froth, some defining a range of quantities of oily
substance, some likewise of acid, some specifying oily substance
alone, some oily substances in various combinations with heat or
acid and with hoth. The main defense of .invalidity is lack of
novelty and anticipation. In reference thereto it appears from the
evidence that the use of oil, air and agitation in ore concentration,
separately and in various combinations, and with other ingredients,
was well known to the art prior to the discovery of the process in
suit. To briefly summarize the prior processes, some of them were
bulk oil processes, using oil in such large quantities that in taking
up the metalliferous particles in the pulp the mass thereof was yet
sufficiently buoyant to float to the surface of water, the
35 gangue sinking. Concentration being more essential for lean
ores, economy is the foundation of success: so other of these
processes reduced the amount of oil to a degree where it was not suf-
ficient of itself to float the metal, and to aid therein air, steam or
gas was injected to render the mass spongy. Another process further
reduced the oil and to and around 4% to 6% in weight of the metal-
liferous content of the ore, the somewhat novel result being that the
metalliferous particles were by the oil agglomerated into granules
which sank in the water and were retained in the mixing vessel, while
the gangue rose and was carried off by upcast. Some dispensed with oil
and employed surface tension or skin flotation by floating off the
powderea (32) metalliferous particles on the surface of quietly flow-
ing waters, or by injecting air, steam or gas into the mixture of ore
and water, or by generating gas therein, whereby bubbles attached
20 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS,
to said particles and carried them to the surface of the water, in all
the gangue sinking. Another process sought the same end by spray-
ing the oiled metalliferous particles through air and onto water,
where they remained, the gangue sinking. In some processes acid
was used to generate gas in situ for flotation, while in others it was
used solely to render more pronounced the selective attribute of oil
for metal over gangue. This last feature was the discovery, so far
as ore concentration is concerned, of Carrie J. Everson, of Chicago,
to whom a domestic patent, embodying it, issued in 1886. In some
heat was used to hasten the action of the oil, and some resorted t
agitation.
36 For anticipation, defendant relies most upon Froment’s pat
ents and working description. They date from 1902 to 190
The process thereof is one wherein the ore is carefully crushed iz
two operations so as to minimize slimes, and is first deslimed, for that
the slime is “too fine to be treated,” quoting Froment. Thereupon;
to a mixture of deslimed ore and water oil and carbonate of lime
(which may be limestone) are added proportionate to the weight
and richness of the ore from 1% of oil in weight of the ore for om
containing up to 5% of metal, to 314% of oil for ore containing 50%
of metal, and from about 1% of carbonate of lime in weight of th
ore, 244% in difficult cases, or more, and in like proportions to the
oil for richer ore, it requiring more gas. Agitation in mixture con
taining two stirrers revolving in opposite directions and for a fey
minutes, or about 10 minutes, at about 300 revolutions per minute
the “chief point” being that all metallic particles are brought “int
thorough contact with the oil,” is described by Froment. The mix
ture is then discharged into a vat containing a perforated coil
through which sulphuric acid is introduced and in (33) quantity
about cent per cent of the carbonate of lime, and a rake therein turns
slowly and about 10 to 12 revolutions per minute to prevent the or
collecting at the bottom in too compact a mass.
’ Steam may also be injected through said coil to assist the reaction
but it is necessary in only cold countries. The reaction of the acid
generates gas which in bubbles carry the sulphides to the surface,
there skimmed or pushed into a hopper. Such thereof as fall
37 back and sink are otherwise recovered. A large proportion of™*
the oil may be recovered from the concentrates in a pres
Froment’s patents refer to the use of “gas of any kind,” that the bub
bles will “become covered with an envelope of sulphides” and rising
to the surface “form a kind of metallic magma,” and that the “for
mation of these metallic spherules is singularly active if the gas is inal
nascent state.” Froment’s patents, working descriptions and an appi
ratus therefor, were purchased in 1903 by the patentees of the patent
in suit. It may be noted that prior to said purchase, and contin
ously since, said patentees were and now are associates and metalur
gists, chemists, experimenters, inventors and operators in ore reduo™
tion in various parts of the world, with headquarters in London. 1
them and in that behalf have issued patents, domestic and foreign”
and they have purchased others. They are of complainants, and much gy"
of their work has been for complainants. There is little evidences”
JAMES M. HYDE, 21
ali of practical use of any of these prior processes, and no substantial
yy. evidence that any substantial commercial success has accrued to any
op of them, or that any of them has had any considerable, continuous,
id successful operation. Some have operated commercially with some
‘as small success, and some are long since abandoned as impracticable,
oi] experiments, failures. Froment’s process has not been in practical
operation. (34)
Complainant’s process has, in instances, displaced some of the
prior, and has firmly established itself as a new and valuable
38 method of ore reduction. The evidence shows many and
large plants thereof built, or building in widely separated
parts of the world. Its successful operations, practically from dis-
coverv, have recovered, and largely from waste and tailings, values
aggregating near $9,000,000 and at a profit of near $4,000,000 to
the patent owner and its licensees. Detailed comment in respect to
anticipation is little necessary save to Froment,. Looking to the
evidence and therefrom contrasting his process with complainants’,
Froment’s requires several times the quantity of oil that does this
gin suit, both by examination of the patents and working description
and by tests in evidence. Froment crushes the ore in two opera-
tions and deslimes it before treatment because the slime is too firm
to be treated by his process, while the process in suit needs but one
crushing operation and finds slime advantageous and most easily
recovered. Froment employs carbonate of lime. the process in suit
does not. Froment requires acid and in greater quantity and for a
different function, than does the process in suit, which latter may
ixggot May not use acid. Both may use heat and both require agitation.
Froment agitation only to disseminate the vil. The process in suit
for that purpose and also to aerate. Froment’s result is by flotation
by gas generated in situ, this in suit is by flotation by air introduced
y vigorous agitation. Froment’s product is like unto a magma, a
spongy, pasty mass of oil and metallic particles and more or less of
gas bubbles, while this in suit is a froth of oil and metallic particles
and. air bubbles. Froment’s requires oil in such quantity
39 that he deems it worthy of recovery from the concentrates,
so far as it can be, this in suit so little oil it disappears, is not
sensible to sight or touch upon the concentrates, but only to analy-
sis, In Froment’s it would (35) seem that the metallic particles
are floated like the basket of balloon, while in this like the very en-
velope of a balloon. Froment’s is costly, while this is cheap rela-
pively. And from the evidence it would seem that Froment’s pro-
cess would fail in practical operation, while this in suit has suc-
ceded. In Froment’s, he oils the metallic particles by agitation,
then when the mixture is quiescent generates gas therein by quick
reaction, followed by immediate and direct rising of the gas bubbles
o the surface in which they may come into contact with but few
»mmietallic particles. In this in suit vigorous agitation of the mixture
eats great and excess volumes of air therein. likely bringing the
iltimate air bubbles into repeated contact with many metallic par-
ch@icles. The action of the gas in Froment’s is almost explosive in
epature. He speaks of proportion of carbonate of lime to be sought
22 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
as in his test tube example the reaction may be so sudden and vio-
lent as to project the metallic particles out of the tube. Froment’s
gas bubbles, quick formed and quick rising, it may be, arrive at the
surface with expansion still in progress. These or analogous rea-
sons may account for Froment’s magma breaking gas bubbles and
fragile evanescent froth in so far as his result is like unto froth, and
also may account for the process in suit’s strong and lasting froth.
One of complainant’s experts, Dr. Adolf Liebman, of Lon-
40 don, characterizes Froment’s product as not a froth but a
magma, and his process as one involving the principles of
skin flotation assisted by bubbles of carbonic acid. He further testi-
fied that in the process in suit is produced a result which was never
attained before, that the froth is of a peculiar character, “consisting
of air bubbles which, in their covering film, have the minerals em-
bedded in such manner that they form a complete surface all over
the air bubbles,” that though “the very light and easily destructible
air bubbles are carried with a heavy mineral, yet the froth (36) is
stable and utterly different, so far as this property is concerned,
from any froth known,” to him, that “it appears as if the minerals
were protecting the tender air bubble like an armor * * *
guarding it,” that “the froth has a long life,” and one is “tempted
to say it is permanent, at least as far as metallurgical operations are
concerned”: that he himself had “seen a froth standing for twenty-
four hours without the least change having taken place”; that a
“very striking difference between the previous processes and the
process of the patent in suit is the difference between failure and
success” ; that “the simplicity of the operation as compared with the
prior attempts is startling.”
Another of complainants’ experts, Dr. Charles F. Chandler, of
New York, testified that the process in suit is new and surprising;
that “there is nothing like it disclosed in the prior art.” These and
other learned gentlemen gave at length reasons for the foregoing
and like views and conclusions. Defendant’s expert, Dr. Eugene A.
Byrnes, of Washington, is to the contrary.
41 The differences hereinbefore set out between Froment’s
process and this in suit are so obvious, numerous, radical
and, in many respects, vital, it is clear they constitute different pro-
cesses. They are different in ingredients, function of some thereof,
combination, manipulation, principle and result. Their points of
resemblance only serve to accentuate their difference. Broadly
speaking, a process is a definite combination of new or old elements,
ingredients, operations, ways or means to produce’ a new, improved
or old result. Any substantial change therein, by omission to the
same or better result, or by modification or substitution to a better
result, or by substitution with different function to the same or bet
ter result, is a new and patentable process. New or substantially
changed methods whereby the product is bettered, increased, cheap-
ened, may be a new and patentable process.
Thus are the cases: (37)
See Mowry vs. Whitney, 14 Wall. 640.
Dental Co. case, 93 U. S. 494.
eet eters ey cerry
JAMES M. HYDE.
Tilghman vs. Proctor, 102 U. 8. 722.
Loom Co. case, 105 U. S. 587.
Lawther vs. Hamilton, 124 U. S. 6.
Richards case, 159 U. S. 485.
Steel Co. case, 185 U. S. 420.
Expanded Metal case, 214 U. 8S. 384.
Rubber Co. case, 220 U. S. 443.
In this suit the doctrine of equivalents has no application. The
process in suit is so clearly new that no exhaustive discussion of
facts, cases or law is necessary to distinguish it from other
42 _ processes or to demonstrate its novelty. The patentees herein
discovered a new, cheap, simple, practical and useful way or
process to combine oil and air and, by agitation, to float and secure
the metallic content in ore concentration. The argument that the
prior state of the art was such that to anyone skilled therein the
process in sui‘ at the time of its discovery was obvious, may, under
the circumstances, be well answered by the cases—“knowledge after
the event is always easy. * * * But the law has other tests of
the invention than subtle conjectures of what might have been and
yet was not.” -
Rubber Co. Case, 220 U. S. 435.
See Expanded Metal Case, 214 U. S. 381.
To whatever extent they drew from the prior art, as they right-
fully could. they took the last and suecessful step. It is urged, how-
ever, that as the patent in suit does not specify exact quantities of
oil and acid, but a range thereof, it discribes merely an experiment
not patentable. It is true, every ore presents its own problem of
reduction.
So while all may lend themselves to a general method, (38) each
may require some modification of the method. All skilled in the
art understand this, and know that in addition to the best scientific
theory they must add the light given by trial and practice. Thus,
only, in the majority of cases, is good, and the best results obtained
in any ore reduction, smelting, milling or concentration. It is be-
lieved that at least in cases where the combination or process is not
of itself the result sought but only the means thereto, a range
of quantities that leaves something to the judgment of the
operator is all that can be described and is sufficiently defi-
See Mowry vs. Whitney, 81 U. S. 646.
Wood vs. Underhill, 5 How. 5.
The patent for an ore reduction process that does not is a rarity
indeed. To the contention that, as in Froment’s process, the agita-
tion must entrain some air like unto that of complainants’, and so
the latter lacks novelty. it mav be observed that if so it was uninten-
tional and unrecognized in that Froment had in mind only flotation
by quick acting gas generated in situ, it aided the art none and is
unimportant.
See Tilghman vs. Proctor, 102 U. S. 711.
24 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
And to the argument that in operating, Froment, in rightful econ-
omy and decrease of oil, and in rightful omission of carbonate of lime
in treating ore containing it in sufficient quantity, his process would
approximate this in suit and arrive at a like froth and hence lack
of novelty in the latter, the response is that the fact that infringe
ment may be easy does not impeach an otherwise valid invention,
and that if Froment’s methods are modified until they approximate
complainants’ and so produce a like product, the process is no longer
Froment’s, but is complainants’. At the argument, with apparatus
a number of tests, trials and demonstrations were made in the pres
ence of the court, both of the process in suit of Froment’s, and of
others of the prior art, of much (39) assistance in arriving at con-
clusions herein.
Upon all the evidence the court is of the opinion the de
44 fense of lack of novelty and anticipation is not established.
Another defense is that the invention was not joint. It
seems the patentees were experimenting with the Cattermole granu-
lation process. An experimenter in their employ, in obedience to
their instructions determined on by consultation between all said 3
patentees, and to which each contributed suggestions, gradually re
duced the amount of oil until the result was the peculiar froth of the
process in suit. He frequently reported to his employers, who fre
quently observed his labors, and they made a record thereof in the
form of reports by two of them to the third, who was chairman of the
owning complainant herein, and for whose ultimate benefit the ex-
periments were conducted. This experimenter was but the instru-
ment through which the genius of these patentees found expression.
The circumtsances are sufficient to constitute these patentees joint
discoverers. At any rate it is not proven they are not. Although
some of the claims in issue include elements not absolutely essential,
viz: heat and acid, and in respect to which they may afford no pro
tection, they are not invalidated by undeceiving superfluous features,
if heat and acid are such. The pstent is valid in respect to all
claims in issue.
In the matter of the defense of noninfringement, it appears when
the charge of infringement was brought to defendant’s knowledge,
he refused to permit an agent of complainants to inspect his plant.
This agent later secured brief access at night, observed, noted
45 and carried away some of the froth then being produced.
This agent is a mining engineer, and metallurgist. He de
scribes the defendant’s plant and gives it as his opinion, being versed
in complainants’ process, that the process therein was substantially
that of complainants. Dr. Chandler analyzed the (40) froth so
secured and fownd its components practically the same as those of
froth from samples of some of defendant’s materials thereafter fur:
nished and treated by complainants’ process, and Dr. Chandler pro-
nounced it as his opinion, based thereon, on the testimony of the
agent aforesaid. and on his knowledge of complainants’ process, that
defendant’s operations were of complainants’ process. Defendant.
pending this suit filed an anplication for and procured the issue of &
domestic patent for a flotation process like to this in suit, which Dr.
JAMES M. HYD2. 25
Liebman testifies “contains a description of the process disclosed in
_ the patent in suit,” and “disclosed an apparatus for carrying on the
process in suit.” And so doth it seem to the court, although defend-
ant testified he professes ignorance of the amount of oil and acid
used in his plant and operations. Enough appears in the evidence
to compel the conclusion defendant was using complainants’ process
and was infringing the claims in issue as charged.
It is worthy of note that during the taking of testimony complain-
ants repeatedly offered to repeat, in the presence of defendant and
his counsel, any of the tests or experiments testified to by their ex-
perts, They also repeatedly objected to tests, experiments and ap-
paratus and operations of defendant, unless an opportunity
46 was offered complainants to repeat the experiments, and un-
less defendant furnished like materials therefor, and unless
the apparatus was offered in evidence or access to them was given
‘complainants. Save for some of defendant’s materials furnished
complainant-, it does not appear to what extent, if at all, defendant
obviated these objections. Otherwise the consideration of the case
might be affected by them.
See Steel Co. Case, 185 U. S. 420.
A decree in accordance herewith, as demanded in the bill of com-
plaint other than for treble damages, will be entered, an accounting
to be had before the master.
July 26, 1913.
BOURQUIN, J.
Filed July 28, 1913. Geo. W. Sproule, Clerk. (41)
Thereafter the decree of Court was filed herein August 15, 1913,
as follows, to wit:
Decree.
Ata Stated Term of the United States District Court in and for the
District of Montana, held at the courtrooms in the Federal Court
Building in the City of Butte, in said District, this — day of
——, 1913.
Present: Hon. Geo. M. Bourquin, District Judge.
47 In Equity.
MIxeRALS SEPARATION, Limtrep, and MINERALS SEPARATION
AMERICAN SynpIcaTE, LimiTep, Complainants,
vs.
James M. Hype, Defendant.
This case having come on for final hearing on pleadings and proofs
and having been argued by Henry D. Williams, Esq., in behalf of
complainants and Walter A. Scott and Thomas F. Sheridan, Esqs.,
in behalf of defendants, and due consideration having been had, it is
26 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the letters patent of the
United States issued to Henry Livingstone Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis
Kirkpatrick-Picard and John Ballot, on November 6, 1906 No.
853,120 for improvements in ore concentration, are good and valid
in law, particularly as to claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
That the said Henry Livingstone Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis Kirk-
patrick-Picard and John Ballot were the true, original, first and joint
inventors of the invention described in the said letters patent and in
the specification annexed thereto and particularly pointed out in
claims, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7,9, 10,11 and 12. (42)
That The Minerals Separation, Limited, one of the complainants
herein, is the lawful, sole and exclusive owner of said letters
48 paterft, and that Minerals Separation American Syndicate,
Limited, the other complainant, is the exclusive licensee
under an agreement whereby both of the complainants must partici-
pate in the granting of licenses to use the said invention.
That James M. Hyde, defendant herein, has infringed on said
letters patent, particularly as to claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and
12, and upon the exclusive rights of the complainants herein under
the same by carrying on the process of ore concentration set forth and
claimed in said letters patent as aforesaid.
That a perpetual injunction issue out of and under the seal of this
Court directed to the said defendant James M. Hyde, enjoining and
restraining him, his confederates, associates, servanis, agents, attor-
neys, clerks and workmen and every person acting for or in his be-
half, from any installation or use in any manner of the said patented
invention or any part thereof in violation of the rights of the com-
plainants as aforesaid, and from encouraging and inducing others
to infringe the said letters pavent and from defending other in-
fringers of said letters patent or reimbursing them for the expense
of defending against said letters patent, in whole or in part, or
otherwise aiding or abetting others to install or use processes of ore
concentration in infringement of said letters patent.
That the complainants do recover of the defendant the profits
which said defendant has derived, received or made by reason of the
aforesaid infringement of said letters patent, and that said
49 complainants do also recover any and all damages they have
sustained by reason of such infringement of said letters pat-
ent, and it is hereby referred to Clarence N. Davidson, as a master
of this court, to take and state the account of such gains, profits and
advantages, and to assess such damages and to report thereon with
all convenient speed; and the said defendant is hereby directed and
required to attend the aforesaid master from (43) time to time as
required and to produce before him such books, papers and docu-
ments as relate to the matters at issue, and to submit to such oral
examination as the master may require.
That the complainants do recover of the defendant other costs and
disbursements in this suit to be taxed, and that all further question
be reserved until the coming in of the master’s report.
August 15, 1913.
GEO. M. BOURQUIN, Judge.
( ~ and entered August 15, 1913. Geo. W. Sproule, Clerk.
JAMES M. HYDE. 27
50 And on September 17, 1913, a writ of injunction was issued
herein as follows, to wit:
United States District Court, District of Montana.
In Equity.
MINERALS SEPARATION, LIMITED, and MINERALS SEPARATION
AMERICAN SynpicaTe, Limirep, Complainants,
vs.
JamMEs M. Hype, Defendant.
Writ of Injunction.
The President of the United States of America to James M. Hyde,
his Confederates, Associates, Servants, Agents, Attorneys, Clerks
and Workmen and Every Person Acting for or in His Behalf,
Greeting :
Whereas, it has been represented to us in our District Court of the
United States for the District of Montana that letters patent of the
United States were issued in due form of law on the 6th day of No-
vember, 1906, to Henry Livingstone Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpat-
rick-Picard and John Ballot for Improvements in Ore Concentration,
said letters patent being known and distinguished as No. 835,120,
and of which Minerals Separation, Limited, is the lawful, sole and
exclusive owner, and under which Minerals Separation American
Syndicate, Limited, is the exclusive licensee, and that you, the said
James M. Hyde, have infringed the exclusive rights secured
51 by the aforesaid letters patent particularly as to claims 1, 2,
3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 thereof by carrying on the
process of ore concentration set forth and claimed in said letters
tent. :
how, therefore, we do strictly command and perpetually (45)
enjoin you, the said James M. Hyde, your confederates, associates,
servants, agents, attorneys, clerks and workmen and every person
acting for or in your behalf under the penalties which may fall
upon you in case of disobedience, that you forthwith and forever
desist from further installing or using in any manner the said pat-
ented invention, or any part thereof, in violation of the exclusive
rights secured by the said letters patent.
Witness the Hen. Edward D. White, Chief Justice of the United
States, this 17th day of September, nineteen hundred and thirteen,
and in the one hundred and thirty-eighth year of the Independence
of the United States of America.
[ SEAL. ] GEO. W. SPROULE, Clerk,
By C. R. GARLOW,
Deputy Clerk.
MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS,
Return on Service of Writ.
Unirep States oF AMERICA,
Northern District of California, ss:
I hereby certify and return that I served the annexed injunction
on the therein named James M. Hyde by handing to and leaving
a true and correct copy thereof, together with decree attached, with
said James M. Hyde, personally, at Berkeley, California, in
52 said District, on the 25th day of October, A. D. 1913.
Cc. T. ELLIOTT,
U. S. Marshal,
By J. M. FREEMAN,
Office Deputy. (46)
Unirep States oF AMERICA,
District of Montana, ss:
I hereby certify and return that I received the within Writ of
Injunction on the 20th day of September, 1913, and on the same
day I served the same on the Butte and Superior Copper Co. by de-
livering to and leaving with J. Bruce Kremer, statutory agent and
attorney for said defendant company, a true copy thereof, together
with a copy of decree of said court, at Butte, Silver Bow County, i in
said District.
WILLIAM LINDSAY,
U. 8. Marshal,
By GEORGE A. McKAY,
Deputy.
Filed and entered Oct. 30, 1913. Geo. W. Sproule, Clerk. (47)
53 And on September 6, 1913, Assignment of Errors was filed
as follows, to wit:
District Court of the United States, District of Montana, Northern
Division.
In Equity.
No. 1076.
MINERALS SEPARATION, Lrp., and MINERALS SEPARATION AMERI-
can Synpicatr, Lrp., Complainants,
vs.
James M. Hype, Defendant.
Assignment of Errors.
Now comes the defendant, by his solicitor, and says that in the
interlocutory decree heretofore entered in this cause on the 15th day
of August, 1913, the Court erred in the following particulars:
JAMES M. HYDE. 29
1. The Court erred in finding that patent No. 835,120, in suit, or
any of the claims thereof are valid.
5. The Court erred in finding that the defendant has infringed
said patent or any of the claims thereof
3. The Court erred in ordering that an injunction be issued
against the defendant restraining him and his representatives from
infringing said patent.
4. The Court erred in ordering that complainants shall recover
from the defendant protits derived from (48) alleged infringement
of said patent in suit.
54 5. The Court erred in ordering that complainants shall
recover of the defendant any damages alleged to have been
sustained by complainants by reason of alleged infringement of said
patent in suit by defendant.
6. The Court erred in referring this cause to a Master to take an
account of profits and to assess damages.
7. The Court erred in ordering the defendant and his representa-
tives to appear and testify before said Master.
8. The Court erred in ordering that the complainants do recover
of the defendant the costs in this suit.
9. The Court erred in not finding that the patent and the claims
thereof in suit are invalid.
10. The Court erred in not finding that the defendant has not
infringed said patent or any claims thereof.
11. The Court erred in not dismissing the bill of complaint.
12. The Court erred in rejecting the evidence introduced by de-
fendant regarding certain experiments and _ tests.
13. The Court erred in rejecting the following testimony of the
witness James M. Hyde:
“Q. 45. In your experiments with the Butte & (49) Superior ores
have you made any observations of the quantity of oleic acid or
other oil used in different experiments, and, if so, with what result?
A. I have experimented in my small test machine, using 500-
gram charges of ore with amounts of oil carrying from .6 of
55 1 cc. to 9 ce. getting very satisfactory results with both the
smaller and larger amount of oil, the oil referred to being the
impure oleic acid or red oil used in the experimental plant at Basin.
A typical test with the use of a very small amount of oil gave re-
sults as follows: The pulp treated was a sample of ore from the mill
which assayed 23.3 ‘per cent zinc; the concentrates obtained from
treating a 500-gram portion of this ore weighed 204.9 grams and
contained 52 per cent of zinc; the tailings weighed 283.5 grams
and contained 2.2 per cent. of zine. This test was carried out in the
slide test machine, using 2 cc. of a 50 per cent. solution of sulfuric
acid and .65 ce. of oleic acid. The actual recovery of zine in this
ease amounted to 91.4 per cent. As the specific gravity of the im-
pure oleic acid used is approximately .9, the actual weight of impure
oleic acid used was .585 gram. This is equivalent to 2.34 pounds
per ton of ore.
In a test in which 500 grams of ore containing 20.3 per cent. of
zinc was treated in the small test machine with 9 cc. of oleic acid,
30 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS. 7
1 ce. of concentrated (50) sulfuric acid and approximately 1700 ce,
of water at a temperature of 78° Fahrenheit, 217 grams of concen-
trates containing 46.5 per cent. of zine were obtained, and 283
grams of tailings containing .6 of 1 per cent. of zinc. The weight
of impure oleic acid used in this case was 8.1 grams, equal to a rate
of 32.4 pounds per ton of ore. This is equal to 1.62 per cent. on the
weight of the ore or 5.3 per cent. of the weight of the metalliferous
mineral contained in the ore. The percentage of recovery
56 of zinc in this test amounted to 99.4 per cent. as figured from
the weight of concentrates and their assay value and as 98.4
per cent. when figured by subtracting the total zine content of the
tailings from the total zine content of the portion of ore treated.
All assays quoted by me in discussing these tests were made by
W. R. Hocking, of Butte, Montana.
I have tested the ore similarly with cotton-seed oil, using a sample
which I obtained from the Fair Drug Company, of Butte, Montana,
and getting phenomenally high recoveries with amounts varying
from .27 of a gram to 18 grams per charge of 500 grams of ore or
through a range of from 1.08 to 72 pounds per ton of ore.
Using .3 of 1 ce. or .27 grams, of cotton-seed oil in treating a 500
gram charge of ore containing 21.3 per cent of zinc, I obtained con
centrates assaying 50.6 per cent of zine and tailings assaying 1»
per cent zinc. (51) The percentage of recovery as figured by for-
mula was 86.3 per cent.
Using 5 ce., or 4.5 grams, of cotton-seed oil in treating 500 granu
of ore of the same lot, I obtained concentrates containing 45.4 per
cent, zine and tailings containing .8 of 1 per cent. of zinc, the indi-
cated recovery being 96.5 per cent.
Using 10 cec., or 9 grams, of cotton-seed oil in treating 500 grams
of ore of the same lot, I obtained concentrates containing 49.5 per
cent. zine and tailings containing .7 of 1 per cent. of zine, the indi-
cated recovery being 98.1 per cent. The amount of oil used in this §
case was equal to 5.6 per cent. of the weight of metalliferous mineral
present in the parcel of ore.
57 Using 20 ce. or 18 grams of cotton-seed oil in treating 500
grams of ore of the same lot, I obtained concentrates assay-
ing 51.5 per cent. of zinc, tailings assaying 1 per cent. of zinc, and § |
an indicated recovery of 97.2 per cent. The amount of oil used in |
this test was equal to 11.2 per cent. of the weight of metalliferous § '
minerals in the oré treated. |
All of these tests with cotton-seed oil were made upon a sample )
|
of ore containing 21.3 per cent of zinc. In each test 1 ce. of pure
sulfuric acid was used, and, in all cases, the concentrates were re
covered as a froth.” (52)
14. The Court erred in rejecting the following testimony of the §)
witness, Eugene A. Byrnes:
“Some simple experiments which I have made in connection with
this Froment patent may be of interest as follows:
(1) A glass test tube holding 100 cubic centimeters was half
filled with water, corked and well agitated for a brief period. The
air in the tube above the water was thus shaken into it, and int
lf
JAMES M. HYDE. 31
mately distributed throughout it in the form of fine bubbles, which,
however, quickly rose to the surface of the water and escaped as
soon as the agitation was discontinued.
(2) The same experiment was repeated, with the difference that
one drop of ‘red oil,’ the impure oleic acid used by defendant in
earrying out his process, was first added to the water. In this case,
the fine bubbles of air entangled in the water upon agitation did
not quickly float, but remained distributed throughout the
58 water for a considerable period, giving it a milky appear-
ance.
(3) Ten grams of the ore which is being treated by defendant
according to his process involved in this suit, finely-powdered, was
taken and placed in the empty 100 cc. test tube. This ore, from
the “Black Rock” mine of the Butte & Superior Copper Company,
assayed about 20 per cent zinc, equivalent to a content of about 30
(53) per cent of zine sulfid. It also contained rhodochrosite, a
manganese carbonate easily decomposed hy sulfuric acid to give
carbon dioxid gas. Upon adding thirty cubic centimeters of water to
the ore in the test tube, some of the mineral floated, by reason of the
air within the mass of ore, and the films of air surrounding some
of the small particles.
(4) A few drops of sulfuric acid were now added to the ore and
water in the test tube, and the mixture was gently heated, where-
upon gas was chemically liberated by the action of the acid on the
carbonate and sulfid of the ore, evolving carbon dioxid and hydro-
n sulfid, and considerable mineral rose to the surface of the liquid,
oated by the adherent gas-bubbles, as in the well-known Potter
and Delprat methods, heretofore referred to by me. This mineral,
however, floated for a brief period only and then again subsided
to the bottom of the tube.
(5) One drop of olive oil was now added to the acidulated water
and ore in the test tube, and the tube was agitated for a brief space,
whereupon a large mass of oiled and aerated mineral floated to the
top, in the form of a magma or froth having the character-
59 istics described in the Froment patent. It was found that
agitation of the mixture for a brief period, such as was neces-
sary to distribute the drop of oil over the (54) innumerable particles
of zine sulfid in the ten grams of ore and moisten their surface
with a film of oil, also aerated the liquid, by the air shaken into it,
just as in the experiment numbered (2) above. These fine bubbles
of air throughout the mass, as well as the nascent gas chemical-y
liberated throughout the same, attached themselves to the oiled
particles and assisted in floating them to the top as a froth.
(6) In order to oil the mineral particles without agitation, two
drops of cotton-seed oil were dissolved in a few cubic centimeters of
ther, and ten grams of the finely powdered ‘Black Rock’ ore here-
tofore described was moistened with the solution. The ether was
allowed to evaporate, leaving the oil adhering to the mineral par-
ticles as a thin film. The oiled ore was then placed in a test tube,
thirty grams of water were introduced, five drops of sulfurie acid
were added, and the whole was gently heated to cause the sulfuric
32 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
acid to react on the carbonate in the ore. The nascent gas gen-
erated by the reaction attached itself to the oiled mineral particles
and floated them to the top.
(7) Ten grams of the ‘Black Rock’ ore were mixed, in one in-
stance with one gram of limestone, or calcium carbonate, as pre-
scribed by Froment, and in another instance with a half. gram of
rhodochrosite, the manganese carbonate occurring in the ‘Black
Rock’ ore, a (55) thin layer or a few drops of olive oil were
60 added, and a few drops of sulfuric acid. On warming to
start the reaction, and agitating for a brief period, the oiled
mineral floated as a froth.”
* *x * * * * *
“By using the Hyde slide machine, I have been able to carry out
a process of separation corresponding to that of the Kirby patent
809,959. For this purpose, | took 500 grams of the finely-pul-
verized ‘Black Rock’ ore which is treated by defendant, and mixed
it with from ‘three to five times’ its weight of water, that is, with
sixteen hundred cubic centimeters, acidulated by the addition of 1
cubie centimeter of sulfuric acid, and with an amount of kerosene
equal to one-fourth that of the ore, that is, 125 grams. The tem-
perature of the water used was 35° C. On agitating this mixture
for thirty seconds by rotation of the central shaft having four radial
arms, I was able to so thoroughly oil the sulfid and aerate the oiled
particles by the air entrained by the agitation, without any in-
jection of streams of air to float the particles entangled in the tail-
ings, as to produce a floating froth of concettrates nearly half an
inch thick. I also roughly imitated the operation of blowing in
air carried out by Kirby, by the use of a single tube pushed down-
ward into the tailings at the (56) bottom and moved about therein.
By removing this first froth and repeating the operation of aerating
by agituting, I was able to remove so much of the zine sulfid from
the ore as to leave the tailings comparatively light in color, that is,
consisting largely of gangue.
61 “By the use of this same Hyde slide machine, I have also
carried out the process of the Schwartz patents 807,501 and
807,503, thoroughly mixing the ore with che oil before agitating
and aerating the mass to produce the froth of concentrates. For this
purpose, I took 500 grams of the pulverized ‘Black Rock ore, assay-
ing 20.3 zine, added 20 cubic centimeters of cotton-seed oil and
mixed the whole thoroughly with a blade, giving a homogeneous
mass having the consistency of molding sand. The slide apparatus
was then filled to the normal level with 1,700 cubic centimeters of
water acidulated with one cubic centimeter of sulfuric acid, its
temperature being 76° F. The oiled ore was added and the mixture
was then agitated for thirty seconds by driving the vertical shaft
with radial agitating blades. A heavy froth was produced and
removed. The mass was then reagitated for the same period, an-
other froth made and removed, and this operation repeated until
six froths had been separated. These froths, combined, were filtered
and dried, and their weight was found to be 230 grams. The assayer
reported their contents of zinc as 41.7 per cent. The assayer (57)
JAMES M. HYDE. 33
to whom I refer was W. R. Hocking, manager of “The Rombauer
Assay Co.,” of Butte, Montana. The tailings from these operations
were also removed and dried, and their weight was found to be 277
grams, containing, as reported by the assayer, 0.7 per cent. of zine.
These tailings were nearly white and it was evident to the eye that
the metalliferous constituents thereof had been almost entirely re-
moved. In this experiment I did not inject a gaseous fluid,
62 such as air, steam, or carbon dioxid, which Schwarz states
may optionally be used, relying simply on the agitation to
effect the production of a froth. The specific gravity of cotton-
seed oil being about 0.9, the 20 cubic centimeters which I used in
this test was about 18 grams, or 3.6 per cent, of the ore treated.
The zine being present in the ore in the form of its sulfid, a content
of 20 per cent. of zinc, as reporied, corresponds to a content of its
sulfid of about 30 per cent. The 500 grams of ore therefore con-
tained about 150 grams of the zine sulfid, and the 18 grams of
cotton-seed oil were thus 12 per cent. of this metalliferous constitu-
ent of the ore.
I also carried o t the operation of the Everson patent 348,157,
by using the Hy 2 slide machine to effect the thorough agitation
of the oiled ore and removal of the sand by means of acidulated
water, floating off the concentrates. This Everson process is sim-
ilar to that of (58) Schwartz, in that the ore is oiled before it is
agitated with acidulated water. For this purpose, I employed the
materials and proportions specified in lines 75-92 of the patent,
using as an acid the sulfuric acid mentioned in lines 8 and 119.
I used eight times the amount specified, that is, sixteen ounces of the
pulverized ‘Black Rock’ ore, and 24 fluid drams of petroleum, in
this instance having a gravity of 33° Beaume. I thoroughly mixed
the ore and petroleum, producing a homogeneous mass having the
consistency of damp sand. I then placed in the slide machine 1,600
cubic centimeters of waters, acidulated with three cubic centimeters
of sulfuric acid, having a temperature of 27° C. The agi-
63 tator of the machine was then started and the oiled ore
gradually added. The agitation was continued for thirty
seconds producing a good froth which was removed. The mixture
was then reagitated for thirty seconds and the second froth re-
moved. In order to maintain the acidity of the water, to assist in
cutting away the sand from the oiled material, as described by
Everson, one cubic centimeter of sulfuric acid was now added.
The mixture was then reagitated several times and four froths re-
moved. One cubic centimeter of sulfuric acid was again added and
the mixture was successively reagitated three more times and three
froths removed. The nine froths were mixed and filtered. The
ssidual (59) concentrates were then washed several times with
gasoline to entirely remove the oil therein, and were dried and
reighed. Their weight was 144 grams. The tailings were nearly
hite or quite light-colored, the greater amount of the zine sulfid
having been removed therefrom, as was apparent to the eye. _
My tests of the apparatus which I had built in accordance with
gure 1 of the Sulman & Kirkpatrick-Picard patent 793,808, shows
38—259
34 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
that ij is capable of producing a very satisfactory froth of concen-
trates. This apparatus, which I had built to scale from the drawing
of the patent, had an agitator of perforated coiled gaspipe three-
eighths of an inch in internal diameter, and about four feet long,
This coil, when rapidly rotated by power produced a very vigorous
agitation and stirring of the liquid in the tank or trough. I tested
it without supplying compressed air to the end of the pipe,
64 and found that while it would stir in some air from the sur. §
face of the liquid, it was not an efficient means for entangling
atmospheric air, as is the Schwartz, Kirby and Hyde agitator with
radial arms. When the apparatus was run on an ore pulp consist
ing of warm water and pulverized ‘Black Rock’ ore, pel compressed
air carrying ‘red oil’ was supplied to the end of the coiled pipe, the
air escaping from the perforations of the pipe was thoroughly beaten
through the pulp, coating the (60) metalliferous particles with a
thin film of oil and attaching bubbles of air to the oiled particles,
which were thus raised to the surface by gaseous flotation, producing
a thick and satisfactory froth. I skimmed off many handfuls of this
thick froth and found it very heavy by reason of its high content of
zine sulfid. It was quite clear that several repetitions of the agita
tion and defrothing, or continued agitation and removal of the froth,
would have separated a very considerable amount of the zine sulfid
from the ore, quite possible rendering the apparatus a commercial
one.
I have repeatedly operated the process of the Froment British pat-
ent 12,778 of 1902, using the Hyde slide apparatus to effect the brief
agitation and frothing and using different kinds of oil and widely
differing amounts of oil. The data of some of these Froment oper-
ations using the finely pulverized ‘Black Rock’ ore having a zine
content of 20.3 per cent. are as follows:
(1) A mixture of 492 grams of ore, 1700 cubic centimeters of
grams of water, at 70° Fahrenheit, 0.3 cubic centimeters of
65 cotton-seed oil and one cubic centimeter of sulfuric acid was
agitated and defrothed five times. The five froths were fil
tered and dried, giving concentrates having a weight of 170.5 grams
reported by the assayer to contain 50.0 per cent of zine. The tailings
(61) weighed 315.5 grams and had a reported zine content of 42
The process was repeated under precisely the same conditions,
except that 20 cubic centimeters of cotton-seed oil or 66 times &
much, was used. Six froths were made and removed, and the dried
concentrates, plus some oil therein, weighed 211 grams, and hads
zine content of 48.3 per cent. The tailings, plus some oil therein,
weighed 292 grams and contained 1.0 per cent of zinc.
The process was repeated under precisely the same conditions, &
cept that 20 cubic centimeters of Ehrmann’s California oilve oil wat
used. Five froths were made and removed, the concentrates, plu
some oil, weighing 219 grams and having a zine content of 443
per cent. The tailings, including some oil, weighed 274 grams ant
contained 0.6 per cent of zinc.
The process was repeated under the same conditions, but using 2
cubic centimeters of ‘red oil,’ impure oleic acid, from Charles Tf
eae S._—=—( .
0 OD te ee en ee te eee et
a
JAMES M. HYDE, 35
Perry & Co., of Helena, Montana. Three froths were made, renioved
and dried. The weight of the concentrates was 65 grams and their
reported zine content was 42.2 per cent. The tailings were not
cleaned, but showed on their surface small epee of aggregated
mineral, or ‘flocks,’ perhaps half a mi limeter, or one-fiftieth
66 of an inch, average diameter. (62)
The amount of cotton-seed, olive and ‘red oil’ used in the
last three operations was more than 3.6 per cent of the weight of the
ore, and more than 12 per cent of the weight of the zine sulfid in
the ore.
The process was repeated under the same conditions using 500
grams of ore, except that ten cubic centimeters of ‘red oil’ was used.
Four froths were made, removed and dried. The concentrates
therein weighed 202 grams and had a reported zinc content of 47.5
per cent. The tailings were very white, weighed 288 grams, and
contained a reported zine content of 1.1 per cent. It should be noted
that the ‘red oil’ used in this test was a special or somewhat purer
form of oleic acid than that used in the preceding run, more of the
solid fatty acids, stearic and palmitic, having been removed by the
maker, Charles T. Perry & Co., rendering it thinner and less viscous,
pasty or solid at ordinary temperatures.
I have made some tests of the apparatus shown in Figure 1 of the
patent in suit, the agitator or mixing vessel and the froth-separating
apparatus being made for me to scale as closely as could be deter.
mined, the cylindrical vessel containing the agitating cone having a
height of 12 inches and a width of 6 inches.
In one run, this vessel was filled with water to the maximum height
permissible with rapid rotation of (63) the cone without throwing the
water out of the vessel, which was found to be two-thirds of its height,
or 8 inches. The amount of water then contained was 3200 cubic
centimeters. To this water was added one cubic centimeter
67 ~— of sulfuric acid and three-fourths of a cubic centimeter of
‘red oil.’ The water was previously heated and had a tem-
rature of 85° C. The cone mixer was now rapidly rotated and
grams of pulverized ‘Black Rock’ ore was introduced, the agita-
tion being continued for ten minutes. The stock-cock in the pipe
leading from the vessel to the froth-separator was then opened, and
most of the mixture siphoned out. The cone being maintained in
motion, wash-water was added to remove the residue, and the vessel
was slightly tilted to empty out the portion contained in the concave
bottom. Some froth floated down the shallow trough and over the
body of the water contained in the spitzkasten passing on into the
launder and being collected and filtered. Considerable mineral, in
the form of fine individual oiled particles, also floated down on the
surface of the water, as a mere film supported by surface tension.
This was also delivered to the launder and collected with the froth,
care heing taken to recover all of the floating mineral whether froth
or film. I was not able to verify the statement in line 92 of page 1
of the patent in suit, that the scum or mineral floated derives its
Power of (64) flotation mainly from the inclusion of air bubbles
‘Mtroduced into the mass by the agitation, by reason of the film flo-
86 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
tation of so much- of the mineral distinct from the areated froth.
All of the concentrates floated and collected were dried and their total
weight was 33 grams. The tailings showed hardly any perceptible
change in color from the original ore as was to be expected
68 from the comparatively small amount of mineral removed
by flotation.
I then carefully washed out all the apparatus and made another
run with 3200 cubic centimeters of water at 35° C. 1.4 cubic centi-
meters of ‘red oil,’ 2 cubic centimeters of sulfuric acid and 500 grams
of pulverized ‘Block Rock’ ore. The agitation was here continued
for five minutes, all of the mixture in the vessel was washed out with
agitation, and all the mineral floating as froths or films was collected
and dried. The weight of the concentrates recovered was 49 grams,
The tailings were very little changed in color.”
Wherefore, the said defendant, James M. Hyde, prays that the
said judgment and decree of the said District Court of the United
States for the District of Montana be reversed.
SHERIDAN, WILKINSON, SCOTT &
RICHMOND,
KREMER, SANDERS anp KREMER,
Solicitors for Defendant.
Service of the foregoing Assignment of Errors and copy thereof
received this 13th day of September, 1913.
HENRY D. WILLIAMS anp
O. W. McCONNELL,
Solicitors for Complainants.
Filed Sept. 6, 1913. Geo. W. Sproule, Clerk. By Harry H.
Walker, Deputy. (65)
69 In the District Court of the United States in and for the
District of Montana.
MINERALS SEPARATION, Limitrep, and MINERALS SEPARATION
AMERICAN SynpicaTE, LimitrEep, Complainants,
vs
James M. Hype, Defendant,
Petition for Appeal and Allowance.
The above-named defendant, James M. Hyde, conceiving himself
aggrieved by the decree entered in the above-entitled court on the
15th day of August, 1913, in the above-entitled cause, does hereby
appeal from said decree to the United States Circuit Court of Ap
peals for the Ninth Circuit, for the reasons specified in the assign-
ment of errors, which is filed herewith, and ‘he prays that an appeal
be allowed, and that a citation issue, as provided by law, and that a
transcript of the records and proceedings, upon which said decree
was based, duly authenticated may be sent to the said United States
Circuit Court of Appeals, for the Ninth Circuit.
JAMES M. HYDE. 37
And your petitioner further cota gy that a proper order, touching
the security to be required of him to perfect his appeal be made.
(66)
SHERIDAN, WILKINSON, SCOTT anp
RICHMOND,
KREMER, SANDERS & KREMER,
Solicitors for Defendant.
70 The foregoing petition is hereby granted and the appeal
is hereby allowed this 8 day of September, 1913, and the
bond on appeal is hereby fixed at the sum of Five Hundred Dollars
($500.00) .
WM. B. GILBERT,
Judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.
Service of the foregoing Petition for Appeal and allowance and
copy acknowledged as received this 13th day of September, 1913.
HENRY D. WILLIAMS anp
O. W. wat QNNELL,
Solicitors for Complainants.
Filed Sept. 6, 1913.
George W. Sproule, Clerk. By Harry H.
Walker, Deputy. (67)
In the District Court of the United States in and for the District of
Montana.
MineraAts SppaRATION, LimiTep, and MrNnerats SEPARATION
AMERICAN SyNpDICATE, LimitEp, Complainants,
vs.
James M. Hype, Defendant.
Bond on Appeal.
ys
Know all men by these presents, That we, James M. Hyde, as
principal, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company of
Baltimore, Maryland, as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the
above-named Minerals Separation. Limited; and Minerals
71 Separation American Syndicate, Limited, in ‘the sum of
Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), for the payment of which,
well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves jointly and severally,
and each of our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
y @ assigns firmly by these presents.
\p- Sealed with our seals and dated this 8th day of September, 1913.
m- Whereas, the above-named defendant has prosecuted an appeal
eal
to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, for the Ninth Circuit,
to reverse a decree rendered and (68) entered in the above-entitled
cause in the United States District Court, for the District of Mon-
tana, on the 15th day of August, 1913;
Now, therefore, the condition of this obligation is such that if the
38 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
above-named defendant, James M. Hyde, shall prosecute his said
appeal to effect, and shall answer all damages and costs that may be
awarded against him, if he fails to make good his plea, then the
above obligation is to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and
virtue.
It is expressly agreed by United States Fidelity and Guaranty
Company, the surety above named, that in case of a breach of any
condition of this bond the Court may, upon notice of not less than |
ten (10) days to said United States Fidelity and Guaranty Com-
pany, proceed summarily in this action to ascertain the amount
which said surety is bound to pay on account of such breach, and
ren or judgment against the said United States Fidelity and
72 Guaranty Company, and award execution therefor.
JAMES M. HYDE,
By ALF. KREMER, Of Counsel.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND
GUARANTY COMPANY OF BAT.-
TIMORE. MARYLAND,
[SEAL. ] By JOHN C. McCOLLISTER,
Attorney in Fact.
The foregoing bond on appeal is hereby approved this 8th day of
September, 1913.
WM. B. GILBERT,
Judge of the Cirewit Court of Appeals.
Service of the foregoing bond on appeal acknowledged, and copy
thereof received this 13th dav of September, 1913.
HENRY D. WILLIAMS anp
O. W. McCONNELL,
Solicitors for Complainants.
Filed September 13, 1913. Geo. W. Sproule, Clerk. By C. R.
Parlow, Deputy. (69)
73 In the District Court of the United States in and for the
District of Montana.
MINERALS SEPARATION, LimiTeD, and MINERALS SEPARATION
AMERICAN SynpicatTe, LimitTep, Complainants,
vs.
James M. Hype, Defendant.
Citation on Appeal.
Unrtep STaTEs OF AMERICA, 88:
The President of the United States to Minerals Separation, Limited.
and Minerals Separation American Svndicate, Limited, Com-
plainants, and to H. D. Williams, Esq., and O. W. McConnell,
Esq., Their Solicitors:
You are hereby cited and admonished to be and appear before the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals, for the Ninth Circuit, at the
JAMES M, HYDE.
39
city of San Francisco, State of California, within thirty (30) days
from the date hereof, pursuant to an appeal filed in the office of the
Clerk of the District Court of the United States in and for the Dis-
trict of Montana, wherein James M. Hyde is the appellant, and
Minerals Separation, Limited, and Minerals Separation American
Syndicate, Limited, are the (70) appellees, to show cause, if any
there be, why the decree in the said appeal mentioned should not
be corrected, and why speedy justice should not be done to the par-
ties in that behalf.
74 Witness the Honorable Wm. B. Gilbert, Senior Judge of
the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, this 8th day of September, 1913, and of the Independence
of the United States the One Hundred and Thirty-eighth, at the
City of Seattle, in the State of Washington.
WM. B. GILBERT,
Senior Judge of the United States Circuit Cowrt
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (71)
Service of the foregoing Citation on Appeal acknowledged and
3 copy thereof received this 13th dav of September, 1913.
HENRY D. WILLIAMS anp
O. W. McCONNELL,
Solicitors for Complainants.
[Endorsed:] In the District Court of the United States in and
for the District of Montana. Minerals Separation, Limited, and
Minerals Separation American Syndicate, Limited, Complainants,
vs. James M. Hyde, Defendant. Citation on Appeal. Filed Sept.
13, 1913. Geo. W. Sproule, Clerk. By Harry H. Walker, Deputy.
75 And thereafter, to wit, on Nov. 6, 1913, a condensed state-
ment of evidence was approved and filed, as follows, to wit:
District Court of the United States, District of Montana.
-
le
In Equity.
MinerALs SEPARATION, Lrp., and MINERALS SEPARATION AMERI-
CAN SynpIcaTE, Lrp.,
vs.
JAMES M. Hype.
Condensed Statement of Evidence.
(73)
Complainants’ Prima Facie Testimony.
Testimony for Complainants of Edward H. Nutter.
New York, N. Y., Feb. 15-19, 1912.
Direct examination:
Tam 36 years of age, a resident of Berkeley, California, and a
mining engineer and metallurgist by occupation. I am employed
40 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
by Minerals Separation American Syndicate, Limited, one of the
complainants, as their chief engineer. Previous to my employment
by that company I was employed as an engineer by Minerals Sepa-
ration, Limited, the other complainant. I am a graduate of Leland
Stanford Jr. University in geology and mining, holding the degree
of Bachelor of Arts. Since my graduation I have been employed in
various capacities in mines and reduction works, usually in a posi-
tion of responsibility.
76 (Here the witness named several mining companies by
which he had been employed as assistant superintendent and
superintendent. )
I was employed by Minerals Separation, Limited, in February,
1910; I studied their process in Great Britain, and early in March,
1910, went to Australia and studied the process there; I left Aus
tralia in June returning to London, and studied and had a certain
amount of supervision of the conduct of tests in the testing works of
Minerals Separation, Limited, in London, and about the middle of
February, 1911, I came to the United States, where I have since
been engaged in testing ores or supervising the tests on ores by the !
process of Minerals Separation, Limited, and in inspecting mining
property in connection therewith.
T have known Mr. James M. Hyde, defendant, about twelve years,
and when I first reached London on becoming emploved by Mine
rals Separation, Limited, I found that Mr. (74—1) Hyde had al
ready been employed by Minerals Separation, Limited, and was
already in London.
At this time I met Mr. Hyde a number of times in London, and
in Wales, where a small concentration plant was being operated by
the process of Minerals Separation, Limited. After T returned fron
Australia I did not see Mr. Hyde again until im December, 1910,
when he was again in London and where we met frequently.
8 Q. So far as you know, what opportunities were af:
77 forded to the defendant, Mr. Hyde, to become familiar with
the concentration processes of Minerals Separation, Limited?
A. So far as I know, Mr. Hyde was instructed by the Minerals
Separation, Limited’s, consulting engineer, Mr. Theodore J. Hoover,
as to the nature of the Company’s processes, and was afforded every
means possible to study these processes in the testing works in London
and South Wales, prior to the time that I left for Australia. This
instruction consisted of information furnished to Mr. Hyde and,
myself by Mr. Theodore J. Hoover and of inspection of the testing
works in operation in South Wales.
On and after Mr. Hyde’s arrival in London in December, 1910,
he was afforded every opportunity to inspect and study the Com
pany’s testing works in London and did so inspect and study them.
Hyde told me that he had accepted employment by Minerals
Separation, Limited, for a year only in order to be free at the end
of that period to make a more favorable contract with the company
or to use his knowledge of flotation concentration for his own put
I went to Basin; Montana, early in August, 1911, and visited the
. see fm bes ae ae a Cele
ee ee ae
— ee To
JAMES M. HYDE. 41
mill of the Basin Reduction Works thon being (75—2) operated for
the treatment of ores by the Butte & Superior Copper Company. I
told Mr. Hyde, who was there, that the process operated by him
infringed the patents owned by Minerals Separation, Limited, and
Lasked permission of Hyde to see what he was doing, as we intended
bringing suit against him; and Hyde refused my request.
78 Hyde told me that he had laid the patent situation com-
pletely and fully before the Butte & Superior Copper Com-
pany with reference to flotation concentration and that that company
had gone ahead with his eyes operi and entered into a contract wit
him to instal- for that company a flotation concentration plant.
Hyde said the process installed was an Everson-Froment process
plant with his own modifications. | told him I thought that this
was a subterfuge on his part, as we knew what he was doing.
I went to Basin two days later on a south-bound train, which
arrived there in the evening, and observed the operations at the
Basin plant from the outside by looking through a window and
cracks in the wall for an hour or more. I was able to observe some
= of the general features of the apparatus and then went inside of
the building. The shift foreman objected to my presence, but I
looked the apparatus over, recognized it as being substantially the
same and of about the same size and capacity as the flotation plant
in the testing works of Minerals Separation, Limited, in London,
and so far as I could see it was operating in the same way.
The shift foreman continued to object to my presence, but I placed
my hand in one of the froth separating boxes, noted the feel of the
concentrate and liquor, then scooped a sample of the froth concen-
trate in my hand and went out. As soon as I got outside, I transferred
y
, @ the froth concentrate (76—3) from my hand into a wide-mouthed
, bottle.
79 I stayed over night in a lodging-house in Basin and next
morning went to Helena, whence I sent the sample of con-
centrate by registered mail to Mr. Henry D. Williams, counsel for
complainants.
(Witness identifies the package of concentrates when shown to
him while testifying. )
coe visit to the Basin plant occurred in the evening of August 10,
a — in a i ae Dd
The night foreman of the plant informed me that he was working
4 for Mr. Hyde.
The day after my visit to the Butte plant I made sketch drawings
from memory of what I had seen there. (Witness produces these
—=
2
a
ig
0, @ drawings and they are in evidence as Complainants’ Exhibit Nutter
o- Drawing of Defendant’s Plant, Sheets 1 and 2.)
nf The numerals 1 to 10 upon my sketches indicate the mixers or
js agitators. TI am not certain that the number is correctly given as I
did not count them, but I thought there were about seven mixers in
one unit and three in the other. The small letters a to g indicate the
ny : : “i he .
1 fothing-boxes or spitzkasten attached to and operating in conjune-
tion with the mixers. I am not certain as to the exact number of
these, but there were approximately the number shown. B is a
42 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. V8.
plank connecting the entrance to the flotation plant H with the
main mill building; A is a launder which I observed only from the
outside; I is a small partly closed court, through which I passed to
enter the plant; G is a platform used by workmen in feeding mz-
terial to the mixers; F is a runway used by the workmen;
80 E is a platform on approximately the same level as the tops
of the frothing-boxes; D is a launder which received the flo.
tation concentrate (77—4) from frothing boxes f and g; C is a laun-
der which received the flotation concentrate from frothing-boxes a to
e; the arrows in all cases indicate the flow of the concentrate in the
frothing-boxes and in the launder; J is a space between the end wall
and the smaller flotation unit.
In the operation of the plant the pulleys indicated by the Fig.
ures 1 to 10 were rotated apparently at the normal speed used in
Minerals Separation Company’s flotation plants of the same size and
capacity, except that number 8 was rotating faster.
The pulp was being brought into the plant by workmen in buck-
ets and wheelharrows and fed, I think, into mixer No. 1. The con-
centrate froth from the larger unit was flowing into launder C from
the frothing-boxes, though one or two of them were not overflowing
at the time of my visit. The concentrate froth from f and g, the
frothing-boxes of the smaller unit, were flowing into launder D and
I took the sample of froth from the lip of frothing-box f. The froth
was the typical appearing agitation froth as made in plants using
Minerals Separation flotation froth process.
The normal speed of the agitators or mixers to which I referred
is about 400 revolutions per minute. The oily reagent usually used
in such plants is oleic acid. The capacity of the Basin plant should
be about 40 or 50 tons a day. For the purpose of observing the tem-
perature, I held my hand for possibly a minute in spitzkasten
81 f and noted the feel of the solution as to temperature, and as
soon as I returned to Butte, the next day, I prepared a bowl
of water until it felt to me to be about the same temperature and
then ascertained that the temperature in the bowl was 102 and 105
_ degrees Fahrenheit. Steam was rising from (78-5) the surfaces of
the spitzkasten and mixing-boxes in the plant at Basin when I saw it
When I washed my hands after sinking my hand into the liquor at
Basin, I noted that they had a sticky or gummy feel, which one
usually experiences after wetting one’s hands with an acidulated
solution.
In my opinion, based upon my knowledge of and experience with
Minerals Separation flotation processes, the smaller unit, indi
upon my drawing by the numerals 8, 9 and 10 and the letters f and
g, was a retreatment unit for retreating the concentrate first fo
for the purpose of cleaning it and raising the grade of the concen-
oe x ae ee ne
wmBEBES sp a>e
trate, and, in my opinion, the agitation boxes marked 1, 2 and 39h
were for the purpose of beating air into the ore pulp, such as i
usually done in Minerals Separation process plants, and of agitating
the ore pulp for the purpose of forming the concentrate froth, which
first appears in the initial spitzkasten a; and, in my opinion, the
ore pulp, after having the initial froth removed, flows through the
JAMES M. HYDE. 43
pipe to the mixing-box 4, where it is again agitated and aerated for
the purpose of forming a concentrate froth in the second frothing-
box 6, and so on through the mixing-box 5, frothing-box c,
82 the mixing-box 6, the frothing-box d and the mixing-box 7;
end, im my orinion, in the smaller unit, the ore pulp, which
I believe to be the concentrate from the first set of frothing-boxes, was
fed into the mixer 8 and flowed from thence into the mixer 9, thence
into the frothing-box f where a froth concentrate was taken off, the
H remainder of the pulp flowing thence into mixing-box 10, where it
WB was again agitated, and thence into the frothing-box g, where a froth
Hi was taken off. (79—6)
Cross-examination :
) The steps of complainants’ flotation process, which is the Agita-
tion Froth process, are not always the same nor always taken in the
same order on all ores, but in the application of that process to the
.@ Butte & Superior ore the steps would consist of agitating an ore pulp,
,e which had been acidulated with sulphuric acid and to which had
been added less than one per cent of an oily reagent; the agitation
would take place with considerable vigor, after which the pulp would
be conducted into a separating chamber where the sulphide mineral
would rise as a froth, which could be flowed off and collected and
q which would form the valuable concentrate. These steps would be
ted until the required extraction of the valuable constituents
from the ore pulp had been obtained.
If it were necessary for me to test an ore for the purpose of de-
4g mining whether complainants’ process was applicable to it, and I
‘ found it necessary to make this test without apparatus, I
og% would take the finely ground ore, mix it with water and
‘ reagents in a bottle, and shake the bottle vigorously. If the
| gore was amenable to flotation concentration, some indications of the
{formation of a froth would be made. If I had a testing machine, of
which there are more than one type, I would perform the operation
inthe machine and would vary the conditions in different tests on an
to see which set of conditions gave the best results. The varia-
tions I would try would consist of agitation with or without sulphuric
wid, with different oily reagents, with agitating the pulp before acid
it
4 should be added, with agitating the water, sulphuric acid and oily
(98—7) reagent before adding the ore, with agitating the pulp to
th @*™me extent with the acidified water before adding the oil, with using
ode” of different temperatures, and, in fact, almost any combina-
nd em OF Variation of these conditions that the indications given as I
oj rent along seemed to warrant.
. The testing plant at London consisted of eight mixers, I think, in
9 gernat we call the standard plant unit, connected with five spitzkasten,
js nk the number is, entirely similar in appearance and apparent
ng eration to the larger apparatus unit in the plant at Basin, Mon-
‘ch ema, together with means for feeding the pulverized ore, which at
the eudon was fed dry to the first and second mixers. and tanks for
themeening and collecting the products of any test. In these mixers
44 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
were agitators, and the ore, water, sulphuric acid, if used andi
84 oily reagent, were fed into the first or second mixer or perhaps!
later in some tests, and the ore pulp was vigorously agitatedi:
and then flowed into the initial spitzkasten, where a flotation froth!
was removed. From near the bottom of this spitzkasten a pipe led!
to the next mixer, where the ore pulp was again agitated and flowed§ |
into the second spitzkasten; and so on. If it was necessary to useff!
heated solutions in testing any particular ore, the solutions weref
heated by adding steam to the pulp in one or more of the mixers, @'
When in Australia T saw the operations of two of the large plantel
at Broken Hill, New South Wales, wherein the Minerals Separation!
process was employed on a practical scale. These plants were work
ing on material, in one case coming directly from an ordinary welf™é
concentration mill, and, in the other case, the material was zine!
bearing tailings which resulted from former operations of ordinary
wet concentration mills. In the first plant the material (81—8)MF
coming from the wet concentration mill was dewatered and then fell?
to the flotation plant, where it was mixed with sulphuric acid and@§
whatever frothing reagent happened to be in use at the time. Theg®
ore pulp was heated by adding steam, azitated in mixers similar tof’
the ones already described, only larger, ‘owed into spitzkasten where
flotation froths were removed, and so on until the operation w
finished. The solution circuit was a closed one. The operation in
the other plant was similar as to the flotation part, except that dm
material was fed in regrinding pans, where the coarser par
85 ticles were reground to the requisite fineness and the whokm™m®
pulp was then passed through a classifier which in part deg®
watered it, and the thickened pulp went to the flotation apparatus?
The agitators were rotated at a speed of about 200 to 225 revolutions §*
per minute. . \
It is believed that the froth is produced in Minerals Separation’ t
process by beating the ore pulp with sufficient violence to aerate
solution, and that the resulting bubbles hecame attached to the
mineral particles and when these have a chance to rise w a quid
surface they do so, forming the concentrate froth. This explanation
seems reasonable, but from the nature of the phenomena it is a thee
retical explanation and open to the doubt which theoretical explaneii®
tions usually are open to. 7
At the time of my visit to the Minerals Separation testing plant@®
at Wales, the ore was being tested under one set of conditions, but L®
understood that it had been tested under other conditions previous?
and it is rather difficult to say whether such tests were successful a
all results obtained are indicative and important, (82—9)
In the Cattermole process it was usual to provide an upcast 6
water which washes the gangue mineral of the ore up and away from
the granules which have been formed, the granules being heavy
enough to sink through the upeast, and T understand that the ch
difference in the results brought about by Minerals Separation
86 flotation process and the Cattermole process is due to the dif
ference in the quantity of oil used.
If in attempting to carry out Minerals Separation’s flotation pm
Tessa z=
JAMES M. HYDE.
\dgcess I found that some of the metalliferous mineral agglomerated
and sank to the bottom, I would alter the adjustment of operations
step by step until I found a condition wherein sunken granules were
not discharged with the tailings. I would try the following adjust-
ments in my attempt to find proper conditions to produce flotation :
(1) I would alter the rate of flow of pulp through the plant; (2) I
would alter the speed of agitation; (8) IT would alter the quantity,
or (4) the kind of oil used on the particular ore being treated; (5) T
swould alter the dilution of the solution circuit with reference to
salts dissolved therein; (6) I would alter the temperature of the solu-
tion circuit; and (7) I would vary the internal arrangement of
baffles or other diverting devices so as to affect the direction of flow
of the ore pulp. All of there adiustments might have some effect or
any of them might have an effect upon the formation of the agglom-
errtions that T have described. It is likely that an inspection of a
plant by one skilled, like myself, in the art would indicate to me the
probable adjustment called for. T cannot say whether, if the oil
supply needed readjustment, I would increase or diminish the supply
gwhen the process was operating imperfectly. The effects are so
various with different (88—10) oils under different conditions that
it is hard to sav in advance what I would do without studving
87 a particular case of ore treatment where sinking agglomera-
tions were being formed.
I could in particular cases lay down a definite rule as to the course
to be pursned to produce the flotation effect without that effect being
accompanied by the settling of agglomerated masses of sulphide. If
an ore were being treated and it was found that the readjustments
previously mentioned by me did not diminish the agglomerating
and sinking effect, and if the quantity of oleic acid used was in
excess of the usual amount found necessary, T would lay down a rule
Bthat the quantity of oleic acid should be diminished. When oleic
acid is used, better results are obtained in a heated circuit than in a
cold circuit. I have never experimented with solid oleic acid and do
not know whether it would be impossible to produce flotation with
lid oleic acid or not. It would be an advantage to liquefy oleic acid
by heat in order to regulate the amount being added, but whether or
not solidified oleic acid would be an advantage or a disadvantage I do
not know. I would expect that when an oil was used that was viscid
iat the temperature of the ore pulp and good results were not being
obtained, better results would be obtained if the temperature of the
pulp were raised.
The use of the minimum quantity of oi] which can be used with-
mt unfavorably affecting the recovery is important from the stand-
Wpoint of economy. _
T have not had sufficient information about the Cattermole
process to enable me to state in figures the exact point where
Cattermole’s precipitation results in (84—11) contradistine-
ion to the frothing of Minerals Senaration frothing process, and T
resume that. with different ores, some experimentation would be
essary to determine the point in question.
149 X Q. Referring to the operations which you saw at Basin,
miana, you stated that the froth flowing into the launders was the
46 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
typical appearing agitation froth as made in plants using the Min.
erals Separation flotation froth process. What are the characteris
ties of this typical froth?
A, It would be a bit hard to describe these characteristics in such
a way that another could recognize the froth as being typical, but]
have come to know this froth when J see it as I know my wife when
I see her, though I doubt if I could describe her with sufficient acen
racy so that she would be recognized if seen on the street by the per-
son to whom I described her.
150 X Q. Perhaps you can describe some of the characteristic
features of this froth, even if you cannot enable the Court to recog
nize it when it sees it. Will you attempt to do so?
A. It is usually a froth similar in some wavs to a sudsy froth and
would be not unlike, I think, such a sudsy froth if it were imagine
full of finely divided mineral matter.’ It floats on the surface: of
water. its color depends on the color of the mineral contained in jf
and forming a part of it, the bubbles are of various sizes and
&9 there is frequently what micht be called a pitted condition t
the upper or air surface of the froth due to the breaking off
some of the bubbles. When oleic acid is beine used as the frothing
agent, there is what might be called a toughness or persistency to the
froth that can usually be noticed. (85—12)
The Elmore vacuum process is a process in which oil and acid ar
agitated with the ore pulp and the air is exhausted from the ves
containing the pulp, the reduction in pressure causing air which
was previously in solution in the water of the pulp to change ta
hubbles of free air, and the sulphurie acid reacting with limestone in
the ore to produce carbonic acid gas. I have heard, and it is my w-
derstanding, that the carbonic acid’ gas and air both perform the
same function in the Elmore vacuum process, one supplementin
the other and each contributing to the same result.
158 X Q. Assuming that in a series of operations gases produce
in different ways are introduced under precisely similar condition
into a pulp containing ore to which insufficient oi] has been added
to produce flotation by the effect of the oil itself, is it your judgmen
us an expert in this art that these gases introduced into the pul
under similar conditions would have anv different effect or function
srowing out of the fact that they had been produced or generated in
different ways?
A. As flotation concentration is an experimental art, I am unable’
to give an intelligent judgment on this point, as TI have not
90 witnessed any experiments which would enlighten me in the
matter.
Putting aside the question of profit of the operation, 1 believe from
the tests which I have made that salable concentrates eould be pm
duced by the Minerals Separation flotation process from ores of th
Butte & Superior mine containing as little as one per cent of zinc it
the form of zine sulphide. Selected samples of zine ore may consi
of practically pure zine sulphide, but an ore carrying twenty p
cent of metallic zine is a good grade ore for (86—13) treatment br
such process under the normal working conditions in establishedj*
mining camps.
ha te ae ek lee Oe ee ee
pt ew<«ean
SB22a= 83a eee @= om oe
sr SD
FEE fen Ss ASB gs
JAMES M. HYDE. 47
When I was employed by Minerals Separation, Limited, certain
literature was placed at my disposal by Mr. Hoover of that Company
for my information, and among this literature was the record of the
testimony in the patent suit between Minerals Separation, Limited,
and the Elmore Company, a large mass of experimental data on
etudies of the phenomena called surface tension, a résumé of patents
relating to flotation and a file of flotation patents and other papers
that I do not remember at this time. I read the material so given
to me.
In the Elmore vacuum process, by the time the pulp reaches the
vacuum chamber the most of the air has been drawn out of solution
and there is not as much air left in solution as there is ordinarily
in water at the same temperature under atmospheric pressure. The
mixing blades rotate at a much less speed than we have found neces-
sary in operating the agitation-froth process.
91 In the agitation-froth process there must be agitation of
considerable vigor such as would be represented by the agita-
om tion produced by blades of 12 or 14 inches diameter rotating at a
4 speed in the neighborhood of 400 revolutions per minute. In the
small testing machines, a speed in the neighborhood of 1,000 revolu-
“& tions per minute or more is necessary. The entraining of air, that is,
the drawing of air below the surface of the liquid, begins as soon as
WM the speed of agitation is sufficient to give a broken surface to the
water and I think the breaking up of the oil would begin almost
immediately after the agitation become- sufficient to break the water
surface, assuming that the oil was (87—14) floating on the water
surface before agitation began.
So far as my observations have gone, the introduction of air had
eecally no effect upon the mode of separation desired in the
rmole process.
With some ores good results are obtainable at atmospheric tempera-
@ tures in the application of Minerals Separation flotation process, but
im. would lay down a general rule that heat should be used in testing
‘pores such as those in the Butte & Superior mine.
My judgment, based on small scale experiments of the Butte &
Superior ore, is that a recovery of ninety-five per cent or better of
the zinc values, in a concentrate assaying fifty-one per cent or more
of zinc, would be entirely reasonable to expect by the application of
Minerals Separation agitation froth process, but in operations
7% on acommercial scale of this process by Minerals Separation,
Limited, concentrates have never been obtained in the case
of zine ores running as high as fifty-one per cent zinc. In this prac-
tice the material treated was in many ways different from the Butte
€Superior Company’s ore.
In treating ores by the process practiced by Minerals Separation,
limited, the practice is sometimes modified or affected by the pres-
ence of carbonates in the ore treated. This depends on the ore being
teated. The presence of carbonates in ore usually makes for a higher
s™@™sumption of acid than would be the case if they were not there.
jg Dan ore, therefore, in which carbonates occur, if it should be found
sary to use acid, such an adjustment of conditions and appa-
48 MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
ratus would be advisable as would minimize the expense incident to
any chemical reaction between the acid and the carbonate in the ore,
It might (88—15) easily be found possible to remove the carbonate
from the ore to a considerable degree prior to the application of the
flotation process. which would have the effect of reducing the acid
consumption, and also it would probably be found advisable
operate the flotation froth process at as low a temperature as gave
good results. The whole matter is one of balancing costs and of
using such a modification of the process as yields the best net result
from a standpoint of profit.
The presence of carbonates in an ore in the treatment of which it
is found necessary to use acid for the effect which that aeid
93 has on the formation of a froth, if in that ore there is a car.
bonate which reacts with the acid, increases the amount of
sulphuric acid necessary ; and the effect of the acid upon the forma
tion of a froth might not become evident until the chemical reaction
with the carbonate had been more or less completed. In such case it
would be necessary to use the amount of acid required to satisfy the
chemical reaction with the carbonate in the ore and the amount of J
acid required to produce the froth, thus necessitating a larger amount
of acid than would be necessary in the treatment of an ore containing
no carbonate or other acid-consuming mineral. One of the product
of the reaction between sulphuric acid and a carbonate is carbon
dioxide gas and it would be liberated in the ore pulp, but I would not
necessarily consider that the carbon dioxide gas so liberated in the
pulp contributed to the flotation of the oil-coated sulphide particles;
in fact, such a froth would not form until the reaction with the car
bonate had ceased. I would not think that the flotative effect,
secured after the addition of the excess wf sulphuric acid over and
above that necessary to satisfy the carbonate, (89—16) was probably
caused in part by the carbon dioxide evolved from the carbonate.
In the bottle test which I have previously described with an or
wherein the carbonate was present in insufficient quantity to react
with all the acid chemically, but was still there in quantity sufficient
to produce some carbon dioxide, it would be reasonable to be
94 lieve that the carbon dioxide had contributed in some measur
to the formation of the froth, assuming that a froth had been
formed, but the same thing would not necessarily be true in the
case of carbon dioxide gas evolved in the pulp during the commer
cial application of the process. I can easily conceive that there
would be a difference in the effect of the carbon dioxide in these two
cases on account of the difference in treatment which is given ina
commercial plant as compared with the treatment in a bottle, as the
carbonic acid gas formed might escape from the pulp before the pulp
had reached the part of the apparatus where the froth was formed.
In the bottle test, the shaking of the bottle produces a rather
violent agitation of the pulp mixture, which brings about the intro
duction of air into the pulp in such a way as to result in a froth®
being formed.
As to what finally becomes of the air which is entrained in the
saa ors et, ee ne
rp
Oo. Ae ee San ee
-—- oO
g
’
n
it
le
5
I-
t,
d
y
JAMES M. HYDE. 49
pulp during the agitation which forms part of the Minerals Sepa-
ration flotation process, presumably some of it goes to form the froth
and some of it escapes without forming a froth, and it seems reason-
able that some of the air goes into solution in the water of the pulp
and that some of the air so dissolved is subsequently liberated.
In the operations of Minerals Separation flotation (90—17) process
in Australia, which I have witnessed, from 15 to 25 pounds of sul-
phuric acid were used per long ton of ore.
We have found a fairly definite relationship to exist be-
95 tween the results obtained with the small scale or test ma-
chines as compared with the results obtained with a commer-
cial apparatus operating under like conditions of temperature and
approximately the same proportions of the different ingredients.
The results are not identical.
There are two types of small test machines which we have used in
the testing of ores by the flotation froth process (the witness then
describes the Slide-Machine, later introduced as an exhibit, and an
apparatus of the type of the Gabbett or Cone Mixer later also intro-
duced as an exhibit, but in the apparatus witness describes modified
by the substitution of a rotating impeller for the rotating cone).
There were a number of different types of small testing machines in
the London testing works that had been used at different times, but
I never observed them carefully. The tests which I witnessed in
Australia were made with a test machine of the cone mixer type
modified as above described.
It has been my observation that air can be bubbled into or through
an ore pulp without giving any flotative effect. With the agitation
froth process, however, it would be reasonable to expect that, if the
pulp was conducted in a thin layer to a trough or over an apron
between the mixing or agitating-box and the box in which the froth
was a to form, the bubbles coming to the surface of the pulp
would come to the surface as a flotation froth and not escape into
the air.
96 The ore supplied to the flotation plant at Basin upon the
occasion of my visit was a wet ore pulp or mud and not a
on flowing pulp. I did not see acid or oil added to the pulp.
—18)
Testimony for Complainants of Charles F. Chandler.
New York, N. Y., Feb. 20-27, 1912.
Direct examination :
Iam 75 years of age, a resident of New York, and a chemist by
occupation. I was educated at Harvard University and the Uni-
versities of Goettingen and Berlin. I studied physics, chemistry,
mineralogy and geology, and began to teach these subjects at Union
Mollege in 1857, lecturing among other things upon the. chemistry
of the metals and teaching qualitative analysis, assaying, mineralogy
nd geology. In 1864 I came to New York and was one of the
4259
MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., ET AL. VS.
founders of the school of Mines of Columbia University, teaching pe
ticularly chemistry, including the chemistry of the metals, for a time
geology, and for a considerable length of time assaying. I had the
good fortune to be the inventor of the assay weights which are now
generally employed in the United States and Great Britain. I hav
had to do with minerals and ores and the extraction of metals from
their ores. I have frequently been called upon during the last forty
years to investigate matters connected with the metals and they
extraction and in patent and other litigations involving ores anj
metals, such as the ores of gold, silver, lead, copper, tin an
97 antimony. I was employed as an expert in the litigations in
volving aluminum, the casting of steel, the hardening ¢
armor plates, and the manufacturing of carborundum. I was g
expert in the famous Johannesburg suit of Thomas and McArth.
relating to the cyanide treatment of gold ores, and was an expert i
the cyanide filtration suit of Butters and Moore, and in other case
I have received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from the Uni
versity of Goettingen, Doctor of Laws from both
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.