# Transcript of Record — Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Baldwin > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386003_0443%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Transcript of Record - **Published:** January 1, 1917 - **Citation:** 245 U.S. 198 ## Text (25,050) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OCTOBER TERM, 1916. No. 323. © ABERCROMBIE & FITCIL COMPANY AND JUSTRITE MANU- FACTURING COMPANY, PETITIONERS, v8. FREDERIC E. BALDWIN AND JOIN SIMMONS COMPANY. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. INDEX. Original. Print Sk ENE ON ee rr eee e eee ae ee a l Transcript of record from the district court of the United States , for the southern district of New York... ......0e.eeee eee eee 5 1 Meeanaed Hill of COMPIBINE...g 00:0 occsc ccd ccocvcescccccsene 1 l RN ANNO 8 tr eee oN ee ecu ean Oe ees ce ek Kaen 6 4 Stipulation as to adoption of answer, &C.......... 6602 00e 18 10 Notice and petition of John Simmons Co. to intervene..... 19 11 Notice and petition of Justrite Manufacturing Co. to inter- EAC per Pee eee ere ee ene eee ny eee ey ee ee 25 13 i cr nk cae bh we ce meade eh Careers Ge 28 15 Testimony of Frederic FB. Baldwin......c.ccccesvcssecces 29 16 eeemmony OF Alfred W. PROCGOR...o.s ccs ccccccvdeseeseres 47 26 REPRE TRL EE TERY EC ET EE TT Ore 7 42 OGMOMY OF MIOWOTO BE. OOK... ccc ccc cccccssecescecwcces 76 42 Peemony Of Aupic L. FANSOD. oi ccc cecceccccesebcesecs 119 65 I C006 si cibecscecectcbspeteheedeats chveevtccas: “ae 74 re 4 Jupp & DeTWEILER (INC.), PRINTERS, WASHINGTON, D. C., NovEMBER 4, 1916. Ty INDEX, Original. Print Testimony of Alfred Proctor (recalled) .................4. 136 75 Seer Gr PU FA SP RID on ss ne sisi Seeks twee ne 172 5 ESE ee ey ee eee LE eee ei 177 97 Nd lace alan ward Wik Rew Wana Via did Ska -0N wade ic whee op h0 8's 192 105 Petition for appeal and order allowing appeal...... cana 194 107 ERE ae ee Cee eee 197 108 Sana warnawenn y@eupae 64:55 tere ree Ee eee 200 109 INES CINNINIE UNO 5055 cy 0:0 0:00:00 0.8 800s 00008 201 110 Stipulation concerning exhibits.................ceseecees 202 110 Seipeintion Waiving CemtiMention. «6.0... ciiccccccseessnccs 204 111 as cia Ga uch attend nb lacaeha hts a hse ws we WSs 8 we 205 112 Complainants’ Exhibit 1—Patent in suit No. 13542....... 2 112 3—Stipulation of facts. &e........ 211 117 5—Judge Orr’s decision, Baldwin * O68: Grier Bros: 0.65.00. 000% 213 118 &8—RBaldwin direction sheet....... 225, 124 13—Justrite direction sheet........ 226 125 16—Proctor’s sketch, Handshy first je ee 227 125 17—Proctor’s sketch, Handshy sec- ond modification ........... 228 165 Defendants’ Exhibit C—German publication .............. 229 126 D—File-wrapper and contents of orig- inal patent No. 821,580......... 234 128 Commissioner's certificate ....... 234 128 Extracts from examiner’s book... 235 129 Petition and specifications........, 236 130 Report of cxaminer. .....000..045 248 137 Amendments to application of Frederic FE. Baldwin, February ab oko in ces ous Oe eee 250 138 Exhibit A—Construction and operation ...... 256 14i Exhibit B—Drawings ....... 257 141 Letter, Kerr, Page & Cooper to Commissioner, February 17, ee eer rer Ter re - 260 142 Report of examiner on amended NIID oor sos: euins taeda on 261 142 Letter, Kerr, Page & Cooper to Commissioner, March 6, 1905... 262 148 Report of examiner op amendment oo a a 263 144 Letter, Kerr, Page & Cooper to Commissioner, January 17,1906. 264 144 Amendment to application, March | ere veer aes his . 265 145 Report of examiner on amend- ment of March 12, 1906......... 269 147 Amendments to application, March ee ee ae siasibs 5a) Ree 147 Opinion, Rogers, J.......... RA es See eee INDEX. iii Original. Print Notice of allowance of patent, MOA D2 SOOO 85.5 suid eck ease 271 Letter. Kerr, Page & Cooper to Commissioner, May 2, 1906..... 272 Letter, Commissioner to Bald- Win, DAY By AOS oisced sin sivenv aes 275 Patent No. 821,580, May 22, 1906. 274 GM RERER CORGHLENES S Re ee cutee ee SRAaidN «ois sete 6's ace iwiein we dei ee openers of saying. X Q. 94. You know hat there are a number of states that have laws which prevent the use of acetylene lights in mines? A. No sir. X Q. 95. You have no knowledge of that? A. I know that they changed the law in lows X Q. 96. I am not referring to that state—you do not know that to be a fact? A. I do not know of a state in the Union where acetylene lamps are not used in the mines. X Q. 97. And you do not know it to be a fact that fully one-half of the lamps in use today in the mines are of the oil burning type? A. I doubt it. By the Court: X Q. 98. Referring now to the re-issued patent, and ite parent did you ever manufacture, or cause to be manufactured cap lamps with a bent rod, or were they alwavs manufactured with the straight rod? A. Yes, thev were alwiys. 47 XQ. 99. Then the only bent rod construction was this big gang lamp? A. Yes sir, on account of the large diameter. Redirect examination by Mr. Rice: Re-D. Q. 100. Referring to this lamp shown in patent No, 656874, the flow of water through the tube was controlled by this valve B, was it not? A. Yes sir, entirely. ALFRED W. Proctor, called as a witness in behalf of the com- plainant, after being duly sworn, testifies as follows: Direct examination by Mr. Rice: Q. 1. Will you please state your occupation, Mr. Proctor? A. I am a consulting engineer and mechanical expert. Q. 2. What mechanical training and experience have you whieh enables you to testify as a mechanical expert? A. My early education was received in the trade schools of Boston, and after that I took a three years’ regular course of study in mechan- ical and constructing engineering at the Massachusetts Institute .of Technology, where I was trained in the theories and principles of . GRECO LAE LORE PONTO SSS QO eR . reeeeeemenmnerens . ee —_— FREDERIC E, BALDWIN ET AL. 27 mechanical sciences and received much instruction in machine shop work and laboratory work and precise measurements. I have since been employed by many manufacturing companies, superintending the construetion and operation of machinery of va- rious sorts. During the past fifteen years, I have been in consulting engineer practice, and have also been a machine shop foreman and 48 have worked at the bench, and I have owned and operated a manufacturing shop. I was for seven years a member of the examining corps in the United States Patent Office. where 1 was constantly engaged in com- paring the structures of patent applications with structures of prior arts. I have been employed in numerous eases as consulting engineer to make tests, experiments, calculations and reports on machinery, and this has been true in a number of cases in tests and reports on hydraulic machinery and hydraulic apparatus, and tests and reports relating to the flow of water. T have used and experimented with, te-ted and reported upon acetylene lamps and particularly portable lamps sueh as is before the Court in this suit. and T testified in the litigation against Grier Company in Pittsburgh. I have also heen experimenting with these lamps for a number of years as a rider of bicycles and motoreyeles, I have testified in many patent suits as a mechanical expert. Q. 3. Have you read the re-issued patent of Baldwin No, 13.542 here in suit, and if so, do you understand the construction and opera- tion of the lamp therein set forth, particularly referring to Claim 4 of the Patent? A. 1 have and do. Q. 4. Will vou please state what the mechanical attributes are of the lamp construetion, particularly specified in Claim 4 of. this patent? A. The lamp specified in Claim 4 of this patent will comprise four principal elements or features, The water reservoir, the earbid container, the water feed and the burner. 49 Claim 4 refers to a lamp and contains these principal ele- ments, but particularly relates to the water feed. T would like to say a few words about the main features before referring to the water feed, which is particularly referred to in this claim. The water reservoir in a lamp of this sort, that is a small miner’s cap lamp, contains a very limited amount of water, scarcely more than an ounce or two. And this water is required to flow out of the reservoir during the space distributed over about two hours or more of time so that the quantity flowing in any small period of time. a a minute or a second, is exceedingly limited. Of course, it is necessary for the flow to be substantially uniform, and distributed Ina uniform manner over the entire period of the operation. Theo- retically, this might be accomplished by a simple hole or perforation or an opening, and that would work if the water were chemically and physically pure. In that case, the water would continue to flow . , —_— > EE ON ING RON SR aR — meee . —_ ee capadieci ieee sre . ” : mre omy SRF . 28 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO, ET AL. VS. in sufliciently small quantity, but practically all water contains a large amount of organic matter, and also mineral particles of dust, and with such a small quantity as is involved here, a small crevice or opening would he either totally or partially clogged up very soon and that would either change the flow, or cut it off. Accordingly, the plan of a simple crevice or hole of that sort is not practicable. Another plan is referred to in the patent specification. Now, the water feed referred to in this Claim is a plan of getting the slow even feed required without any of the difliculties as mentioned. Coming now to the second feature, or element, of the lamp, the carbid container, this is also a small vessel, and contains a 50 limited quantity of caleium earbid which is a erystalline rock, and comes in small lumps, so that the container will be half full of these lumps, when the lamp is started. When hydrated, the carbid changes its form and lhecomes powdery, and it may be light or feathery, like ashes, or rather dense and tightly packed like damp sand, depending on the conditions under whieh it is hydreted, It also swells when it is hydrated and nearly fills the container, The carbid container of course also affords the only gas ehamber or gas storage space that there is in this lamp, and that is very limited. For that reason, the generation of gas must be also very uniform in a lamp of this class because it must be produced substantially as it is consumed, There is no storage space to take eare of any accu- mulation, therefore, the water fed must be even and regular for this cause, The fourth feature I spoke of, the burner, requires no special mention except that it uses a very small flow of gas, about one-eighth of a cubic foot per hour. Now, referring particularly to the lamp referred to in Claim 4, and the water feed of such lamp, I might refer to this drawing en- titled Complainant’s Commercial Lamp. Mr. Rice: I offer in evidence the drawing, Complainant’: Com- mercial Lamp, as Complainant’s Exhibit 9. (Marked Complainant’s Exhibit 9.) The Witness: This illustrates the water reservoir, the carbid con- tainer and the burner, all marked with the appropriate inscriptions. The water feed itself is referred — in this Claim as “a water 51 tube extending from the former,’—that is, from the water reservoir,—‘‘a considerable distance into the latter,’’-—that is, the receptacle for caleium carbid,’”-—and adapted to be imbedded in the mass of carbid in the receptacle. There is also specified, “a rod extending through the water tube “and constituting a stirrer to break up the slacked carbid around the “outlet of the water tube.” The water tube is shown in black section, on this illustrative drawing and is marked “water tube.” The water controlling rod is shown extending down through the water tube and is marked “restricting rod.” The water tube, it will be observed, is carried into the body of the carbid in the receptacle. In other words, car- ried a considerable distance into the receptacle for caleium carbid, 4s GARR AO Se es PM Medi Ag Teter wg 5, - SERA PREY MEAP SORE > FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 29 and the stirrer is a prolongation of the water controlling rod at the bottom and is labelled “stirrer.” As to this water feed, there are two principal features and they are referred to in combination in this claim. I have here another drawing entitled, “Proctor Flow Diagram.” and which illustrates to actual size, or rather to an exact scale, the sections of the tube and rod in the complainant’s actual lamp, this being cross section, 20 times enlarged, Fig. 1. You will see that the tube has a duct or bore of comparatively large size, and there is a rod or wire within the tube also of comparatively large size 52 which affords a space between the two, or crevice of con- siderable area, That is to say, there is a considerable surface on the inside of the tube and a considerable surface on the outside of the rod which are in contact with the descending stream of water. The tube is also a comparatively leng tube for it extends from the reservoir clear down to the carhid container. Due to these various features, there is a large amount of retarding surface afforded to obstruct the flow of water which descends in an even sheet in con- tact with the wall. In this way, the flow is cut down to the small amount required although the actual crevice is not so thin as to be readily obstructed by the particles of mineral and organie matter in the water. In other words, the actual crevice is big enough in area not to be obstructed by particles in the water but the amount of surface, retarding surface, is so great as to cut down the flow to the amount required, the very small flow that IT have mentioned. Mr. Rice: I offer in evidence the drawing referred to by the Witness, (Marked Complainant’s Exhibit 10, Proctor Flow Diagram. ) The Witness: Fig. 2, is a simple bore or hole of the same area as Fig. 1. In other words, I have calculated the area of that white section, and laid it out in Fig. 2, and it has this size showine the large amount of actual area. Now, by experimenting, 1 found that a hole of that very much smaller size (these are all twenty times enlarged, there is the actual article, if you will look through 53 (indicating), will flow considerably more water than this Baldwin water feed, which has considerable larcer area. That shows that the flow is cut down jin the manner I have said by the surface friction for the retardation. Of course, this small hole. Fig. 3 would be quickly clogged up by the sediment in the water, and that is the practical result. By the Court: Q. 5. IT want you to give me that point again? A. Fig. 2 was drawn by me to show simply an opening having the same cross sectional area as the cross sectional area of the actual Baldwin feed. All twenty times enlarged. Now, Fig. 3 is another view made by experiments from an actual orifice whieh will flow considerably more water than the actual Bald- win feed. It will be seen that this is a very small hole, and vet it will flow more water than the other, ; —_— spear Lt, FELT NT FO CSA TG RE YB TA i i Le lk act at — 30 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO, ET AL. VS. I here produce the actual orifice from which Fig. 3 is drawn. Mr. Rice: I offer in evidence the plug containing the orifice which the witness has stated will flow somewhat more water than the actual Baldwin lamp. (Marked Complainant’s Exhibit 11, illustrative plug.) The Witness: Summing up briefly on this point that I have just made, the water feed referred to in this claim affords the extremely small flow desired without liability of stoppage and without m4 using a regulating valve. A second point on this same sub ject is that there is a comparatively large opening for the water flow, that is, an opening of considerable cross sectional area as distinguished from this annular shaped, but this annular shape is advantageous in that no particle can very well beeome lodged so as to obstruct the whole ring, and it would not seriously cut down the flow owing to the ring shape, so that there are two points, one, this large area, and this ring shape. IT will now refer more particularly to that part of the Claim which states that the tube and rod are carried down into the earbid con- tainer. The result of this feature is that the tube is always im- bedded in the earbid. This is plainly shown from the drawings, Complainant's Commercial Lamp Exhibit No. 9. Bearing in mind what IT have stated about the carhid hydrating, it will be evident that the result of the flow of water is to hydrate the carbid around the outlet in such manner as is indicated on this drawing. In other words, there would be a sort of a ball quickly created around the outlet of the water tube. This would eut down, or in faet. stop the flow, due to its pasty nature, and due to the expansion, except that the stirrer is provided. By turning the stirrer the sludge ball is opened up enouch to allow the water to continue to percolate through and after that has once been done, the water will continue to perco- late through with surprising regularity for a lone time thereafter. The sludge ball which is quiekly formed, and which remains 55 continously throughout the operation of the lamp is there fore a factor of its operation which must be constantly taken into consideration and which as a matter of fact has an important effect on the operation of the lamp. By the Court: Q. 6. What is the physical operation of the rod on that ball? A. As a matter of fact. the turning of the rod has the effect of opening up a erevice around the rod for about one hundredth or one-half of one hundredth of an inch in width. and as this ball is like mortar and attains a fixed condition of hydrating that crevice will remain, and remains thro:ghout the life of the charge of carbid in the lamp and allows the water to percolate throuch. Now, that brings out very well the next point, that by means of the stirrer the sludge ball is kept in proper condition. Tn other words, the crevice is opened up: and of course also the water tube can be cleaned by that same rod. Furthermore, the imbedding,. of GEE MIELE EIN ORY ER Stade lp? GE aT Heer . " ene | FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 31 course, allows a comparatively long tule and rod, both of whieh in- crease the retarding friction. I next come toa very important point of the operation and which brings in the faet of this sludge ball. The gas pressure in the carbid container will actually vary somewhat. Carbid lumps vary in sensi- tiveness and as the space there is so very small it will be inconeeiv- able that the generation of gas could he absolutely uniform. There- fore, there are minor variations of pressure of the gas in the carbid container, Now, the effeet of the sludge ball which is formed 56 around the outlet is that it makes the lamp comparatively in- sensitive to variations in the gas pressure, In other words, the sludge ball has the effect of so surrounding the water outlet that the water continues to percolate down and through that ball at a substantially uniform rate, regardless of these minor variations of the gas pressure and that is, of course, the resu!t desired, It is desirable, in other words, that the feed should remain continuous notwithstanding the fact that the gas pressure may have fluctuations; furthermore it makes the lamp relatively insensitive to the drop of the water in the reservoir. Of course, when the re would drive away through the earbid—you would have no such forma- tion——- X Q. 29. Just imagine it coming in under an ordinary proper flow. Mr. Rice: I object to the question. The Court: Sustained. X Q. 30. If you have an apparatus with the water tube extend ag into the carbid and the end of that tube is imbedded in the earhid and vou allow water to flow by gravity from a tank above the tube into the carbid, a sludge will be created around the end of that tube, will it not? Mr. Rice: Objected to, Mr. Offield: I withdraw the question. X Q. 31. Is there anything said in the Baldwin re-issued putent about the effect of the head of water having any influence upon the regulation or control of the lamp? Mr. Rice: Objected to as irrelevant. The Court: Objection sustained. The patent speaks for itself. (Discussion between Court and counsel 66 By the Court: X Q. 32. There is one thing that I should like to have somewhat clear—you said that the bend performed no function in a so-called miner’s cap lamp, as T understand yvou—is that right? A. Yes, sir. X Q. 33. Well, now, what does it do in a big lamp like Mr. Bald- win spoke about—what is the function—why is there a bend? A. Well, I think T ean imagine that in this way. When you take a small lamp of the size of the complainant’s miner’s cap lamp the sludge ball, the ball of hydrated carbid around the outlet will be only about as big as a pea. Now, it is fully broken up by the ro STREP et ROI ON SRD EN Baer Ren Hea TR MC RITA — PREDERIC FE. BALDWIN ET AL. 37 tation of a straight wire, a crevice one-half of one hundredth of an inch is opened up all around, and it is sufficiently broken up for all purposes. If you have a bent end to the red, it sweeps around through the sludge, and, of course, also breaks it up, but it may not be more thoroughly effective and probably would not be because the dust or sJudge settles back under those conditions to where it was before uid there is not any crevice opened up around the wire in exactly the ame Way. Now. when you have a rather large lamp, like a gang lamp, every- thing is on a somewhat larger scale, naturally, and the sludge or hydrated carbid which collects around the outlet will be larger than apea. It will reach out further and it is necessary in that case to weep around through it in order to break up its outside. X Q. 35. Then as | understand your answer, the bend at the end, putting it colloquially, does more stirring than if it was not bent, in a large lamp? A. Yes, sir, in a large lamp. ivi Br. Mr. Offield: X Q. 36. In that portion of the specification of the re-issued patent between lines 54 and 64 which you referred to on page 2, is there invthing said in there about a crevice in the sludge mass? A. Well, the words simply are, “used to break up the mass of carbid surrounding the outlet to the water duct. X Q. 37. Now, speaking from a practical or a mechanical -tan-- point. when you have in mind the breaking up of a mass of meterial, lo you consider that forming a little crack in that mass is breaking the mass up within the ordinary understanding of the term? A. T think so, especially as IT have used the expression ‘open- ing up a crevice” in my testimony: of course, there is nothing solid about this sludge ball and the effect of opening up a crevice is to one: up cracks throughout the mass. X Q. 38. That sludge ball is saturated material, it is not, it is wet? \. It is damp. XQ. 39. And you crack damp material by rotating a round wire in it, is that vour theory? A. Yes, sir. X. Q. 40. Now, in the operation of the Baldwin lamp, you rotate the wire, do vou break it up, give it several turns? A. Yes, sir. XQ. 41. Can you rotate the wire of the Baldwin lamp as it stands there now? A. Yes, sir. X Q. 42. How far? A. (Witness rotates wire.) X Q. 43. Do you not know it to be a matter of practice that the ~ is reciprocated vertically in the general manipulation of these amps? A. No, the directions state to turn the rod and T might say that I had one of these lamps and operated it before T was re- tained in any of this litigation and I had always turned mine to bring up the flame. —_—_ PIE BE TTT LTPP OTIAY yh ON ENN POM LR SATS DY MEENA ES ATR einen OF AA RITA ew NA Nk 38 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO, ET AL. VS. X Q. 44. Is there any different effect in reciprocating the rod vertically or turning it upon its own axis—is there any different effect in increasing or decreasing the flow of water? A. Well. it) is possible that when vou vertically reciprocate the rod you might create a sort of pumping action because if vou draw the rod far enough into the tube you will have a water filled space under the rod and then when you push the red down you will expel that water. (1 would like to note that I turned the stirrer in response to the request for a demonstration and after a little while the flame in- creased, or came up.) XQ. 45. Please state whether or not there is any different action, in so far as the tlow of water is concerned, between the Baldwin lamp of the re-issued patent and the Baldwin lamp of Fig. 6 of the original patent of 1900 with the foraminous tube in it? A. Yes, sir, certainty. X Q. 46. There is a difference? A. Yes, sir, X Q. 47. That is. insert the perforated tube of the original Bald- Win patent in that strueture--what ts the difference in operation of the lamps in so far as the water reculating means there is shown? By the Court: X Q. 48. He says to take the Baldwin perforated tube of the origi- nal patent, the so-called abandoned patent, and insert it into the pres ent re-issued structure and what is the difference between that action when so inserted and the action of the Baldwin re-issued lamp? A. There would be too much water feed. Many times 69 too much, in all probability, because the sludge hall of course, has an effect in cutting down or assisting the cutting down of the flow, as well as the retarding surface in the tube. Of course, in the original Baldwin lamp the regulating valve is provided which can be adjusted as finely as desired and in addition to that. of course, the lamp would have an entirely different character of operation and would not have any of the mechanical attributes, or characteristics that T took up before in my testimony. By Mr. Offield: X Q. 49. So that the formation of the sludge ball at the lower end of the water tube of the Baldwin lamp in your estimation is one of the essential things to the successful operation of the lamp? A. Yes. sir, that in combination with the water feed, X Q. 50. In defendants’ lamp is the valve as employed in that lamp capable of regulating the flow of water to any extent? A. No, you said the valte, did vou not? XQ. 51. Yes? A, No. X Q. 52. In your estimation it is merely a valve that is capable of opening the duct or capable of closing the duct? A. Yes, sir, unless extraordinary careful manipulation is ex- ercised such as a scientist or laboratory assistant might exercise. ENGL JON SDU LG BRE ISB eanyrg ’ ee ea, * FREDERIC FE. BALDWIN ET AL. 39 ‘rom an ordinary practical standpoint it cannot be manipulated xcept to shut off and turn on the flow. XQ. 53. In view of your study of the Baldwin re-issued patent, what is the reason for extending the water tube into the car- (0 bid compartinent for a considerable distance? ~ Well. TL enumerated a large number, [ think about welve reasons in my direct testimony, XQ. 54. One of the reasons was that you wanted to get the water ube into the carbid mass? \. Yes, sir, that was the reason for extending it-—-one rea- on. X¥ Q.55. Another reason was that you wanted to get the long water ube from the water compartment downward ? 3. It is not absolutely necessary that it) go downward in der to give the retarding surface that [ spoke of. X Q.56. Tt may be twisted or curved, or something of that kind? \. Well, that would introduce other problems that I would jave to separately consider. X Q.57. What reason was there for extending the water tube into he carbid other than to get the end of the tube buried in the mass, to vet a long frictional surface between the top of the water tube ind the bottom of the water tube? A. To get the numerous effects that 1 spoke of. For ex- ample, to get the screen effect, to get the dust laden gas away from the outlet. XQ. 58. Well, that is an advantage that is inherent in any tube that extends into the carbid, but my question is from the viewpoint of the patent, we will say, what was the reason for extending the tube into the carbid? A. 1 do not understand the question any differently than my previous answer, that is to get the various conditions that T have spoken of. X Q. 59. Please state what is the meaning of the word, in your estimation of “considerable” in Claim 4? A. The words are “extending a considerable distance into 71 the latter.” | think that means what is otherwise expressed by a statement “introduces the water into the body of carbid which said receptacle is designed to contain.” In other words, car- ried well into the mass of the carbid in the container, X Q. 60. In vour understanding for the operation of the lamp, should the tube be carried into the carbid into the middle of the body? A. It should certainly be carried well below the surface of the carbid when it is in its fresh condition. X Q. 61. Would it make any difference in the operation of the lamp if it were carried within a quarter of an inch from the bottom of the carbid chamber? ‘ A. T do not see that it makes any difference if the tube is a little longer than is shown in my drawings so long as it be long enough to reach well below the surface of the carbid. X Q. 62. Now, supposing the water tube was a little shorter than that shown in the drawing, to simply come in contact with the top 40 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO, ET AL. VS. surface of the carbid, would that make any difference in the opera- tion of the lamp? A. Yes, sir, that would obviously make a difference because in that case there would be no opportunity for this ball of sludge to form. X Q. 63. That is, no sludge ball would form around the mouth wf the water tube if the tube merely came in contact with the top surface of the charge of carbid? A. No, sir. not the same way at all. X Q. 64. Why not? » A. Beeause the tendency of the carbid when it hydrates, is to hydrate in a very light and feathery manner, and if you did not have the water tube imbedded, the sludge ball does not attain 72 any such consisteney as 1 described, but would be simply gry particles without any effeet—— XN @Q. 65. Isn't it a fact that from your own drawing that if the water tuba only came in contact with the top of the carbid that as soon as the carbid was hydrated, the unslaked carbid would be pushed up bevond the end of the water tube and the hydrated carbid would form around the mouth of the tube? A. No, that is not the effect, if IT understand the question. Well, my answer was that would not be the operation. Recess until 2 P. M. After Recess. 2 O'clock P.M. Aurrep R. Procror resumes the stand. Cross-examination continued: Mr. Offield: Just one question, I think, that I want te ask tas witness, your Honor. Br. Mr. Offield: X Q. 66. Is it not a fact that the gas pressure within the carbid chamber of the Baldwin lamp has the effect at all times of retarding the flow of water through the tube? A. Yes, to this extent, that the gas pressure in the container directly opposes the head of the water afforded by the height or the reservoir. There is, therefore, a differential had between the number of inches of the water column and the number of inches of the gas pressure in the container. That differential may be termed 73 the effective head and to that is to be added, of course, the absorptive effect of this ball of sludge at the bottom. X Q. 67. But irrespective of the absorptive effect of the carbid, or the effect of the ball of sludge in the mouth of the tube, it is a4act that there is a constant back pressure upon the water column so long as there is gas pressure within the carbid chamber? A. Yes, but it is necessary to bear the fact in mind that the gas pressure does not directly reach the outlet of the water column because there is this interponent ball of slydge. X Q. 68. It has to pass through the body of the carbid and through —— FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 41 the sludge, but it ultimately reaches the mouth of the tube so that there is a gas pressure on the water column? A. Yes, it reaches it, except the effect is modified by the inter- ponent parts. X Q. 69. Interponent subject matter that may be at the mouth of the tube. That is all. A, Yes. Redirect examination by Mr. Rice: Re-D, Q. 71. Will you state, referring to this last question, what that difference in pressure is, in figures, that is, the amount of pres- ure in gas inches which the Baldwin lamp will sustain, operating normally with the end buried in the carbid and the pressure which would be suflicient to cause a blowback if the sludge were not around the mouth of the tube? A. Well sceording to my experiments, the actual plaintiff's lamp, with the waver tube imbedded, will operate continuously and success- fully with water pressures of between 21% and 4 inches, and there will be no blowback of the acetylene through the water tube under these conditions, and no interruption in the water flow. On the other hand (if the tube is not imbedded in this way the gas i4 will blow up through the water tube at about the pressure I mentioned. Re-D. Q. 72. What pressure? A. 2's to 4 inches, and of course under those conditions the feed will he interrupted. Re-D. Q. 73. Tow did you determine by your experiments how much pressure the lamp would stand without a blowback ? A. By the use of a pressure gauge, which, for that particular ex- periment, | applied directly to the burner so that I could run the pressure up beyond its condition in normal working. Re-D. Q. 74. What was it? A. Tow high was the pressure. Re-D. Q. 75. Yes. A. Well, it varied under different conditions. Under some con- ditions the pressure would run up as high as twelve or fourteen inches, a remarkable result, without any blowback. That, of course, is very much higher than any pressure ever attained in practice. The Court: What is the pressure attained in practice if you know? _ The Witness: Between two and one-half and three and one-quarter inches, as an average, but it fluctuates either side of that for about an inch more. Re-D. Q. 76. Referring to this Baldwin patent No. 656,874, the water feed, if I have understood you correctly, in this patent is deter- mined by this valve D? A. Yes, sir. Re-D. Q. 77. Will you state briefly what the difficulties. if any, are in attempting to control a feed of water through a tube in a lamp of this character by means of a valve solely? 6—323 ‘ — a as Rs od SAREE RNS LA OPEL TS IACI 2 TED: BERENS ORI 4? ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. ET AL. VS. A. By the expedient of using a regulating valve which can 75 be finely adjusted, it is, of course, theoretically possible to obtain as slow a feed as is desired, but practically the use of such a valve is subject to the objection and difficulty that it is hard to adjust. It requires considerable care to adjust it to just the exaet speed, and perhaps some experiments to know just what the effect is going to be. And furthermore, after it has been adjusted, it is likely to require readjustment because the crevice afforded by the valve is so minute that it will trap the particles in the water and the flow will be changed so that the valve will be required to be read- justed. That is a second point. First, the difliculty, and second the necessity of change. And thirdly, the valve is liable to corrode and is somewhat troublesome to construct and diflicult to make and liable to get out of order and so forth. Re-D. Q. 78. Can vou give the Court any idea about the crevice, the size of the crevice necessary to produce the proper feed of a lamp of this character? A. Yes, I have here a drawing which T have entitled “Amount of valve opening 20 times enlarged, giving the same as the Baldwin flow. That is, the width of a crevice on the same scale as the draw- ings of my diagram entitled “Proctor flow diagram,” and it will he seen from that how likely the valve opening is te collect the minute particles of sediment in the water and become obstructed. This white line represents the crevice. It is a scale width about equal to the opening of the valve. Re-D, Q. 79. That, you say, is enlarged twenty times? | A. Yes, sir. | Mr. Rice: I offer in evidence the diagram just referred to 76 by the witness as Complainants’ Exhibit 12, illustrating the valve opening. Same received and marked Complainants’ Exhibit No, 12 Xe-D. Q. 80. You testified, as you have said, in the suit of John Simmons Co., and Baldwin against Grier Brothers in Pittsburg? A. Yes, sir. Re-D. Q. 81. IT hand you Complainants’ Exhibit No. 6, Grier Brothers Lamp, and will ask you to state whether or not this is the lamp in that suit? A. It is. Plaintiff Rests. Defendant's Testimony. Howarp M. Cox, called as a witness in behalf of the Defendants being first duly sworn testified as follows: Direct examination by Mr. Offield: Q. 1. Please state what education and experience you have had that enables you to qualify and testify as an expert witness in matters pertaining to letters patent? A. I graduated twenty years ago from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Engineering Department and for three years there oe LL LEER LES OLLEELSELIELIS ILLES BALDELLI A ‘ : ATTEN il wa FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 43 after | practiced engineering. 1 then studied patent law, became a patent solicitor and expert and have done nothing else ever since. Q. 2. Have you read, and do you understand the specification in- volved in re-issue patent No, 18,42 of March 11, 1913” A. | have and do, Mr. Oflield: 1 might state, your Honor, that instead of 7 proceeding first to a comparison between the re-issue patent and the original patent from which it was re-issued for the purpose of showing the invalidity of these claims as re-issue claims Lam going to follow right on now into the prior art while this matter is still fresh in your mind in order that we may show your Honor the prior art structures and [think you will follow it better than in the original outline of the case. (). 3. Please state whether or not acetylene generators, or acetylene lamps uniformly have a water reservoir, a receptacle for calcium carbid and some means for conducting the water from the water receptacle to the calcium carbid? A. They all do except in that type of lamp where the carbid is dropped in, or otherwise conveyed to the water, but there are two genera! types of lamp and what you state is true of this type under consideration. Q. 4. Both claims, one and four of the reissue patent have the following elements in them “a tube extending from the former a con- siderable distance into the latter so as to be imbedded into the mass of carbid contained in said receptacle.” Please state whether or not you find in any prior art patent a construction in acetylene gener- ating apparatus in which the water tube extends from the water reservoir a considerable distance into the carbid chamber so as to be imbedded in the carbid. Mr. Rice: If the Court please, I object to that question on the ground of the inclusion of claim 1. We have not relied upon 78 claim 1. I may say that there might be reasons why there would be a discussion as to an infringement of claim 1, which we have not—TI don’t mean to state here that we might not consider claim 1 infringed, but there is argument on the subject of claim 1 which is not present as to claim 4. As we are satisfied to rely upon claim 4 T do not see why the time of the Court should he wasted by dragging claim 1 into this litigation. Mr. Offield: The time of the Court is not going to be wasted, your Honor, for the same clause and this same element appears in both caims so that the answer of this witness as applicable to claim 1 is just as applicable to claim 4. I include both the claims in here because the same answer meets the same element in each of the claims. Outside of the question T submit to your Honor that irre- spective of the fact that complainant has abandoned claim 1 in this case, T submit to vour Honor that we are entitled to show in this proof the invalidity of that claim, that every element of that claim is met in the prior art, and it is our expressed purpose to bring before your Honor the distinction between claim 4 and claim 1. Mr. Rice: That, of course, if your Tlonor please, is going to bring 44 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. ET AL. VS. up the question here as to whether Mr. Offield’s statement as to the validity of claim 1 is correct. Now, T challenge that statement and [ do not think he can show that claim 1 is invalid, but if we 79 are going to try out that issue of course this litigation is g: .ag to take a much wider scope both as to the references involved and as to the rebuttal testimony and all that sort of thing. The Court: My view of the matter is this; you can, for instance to illustrate, go to the file history and show the whole condition which would be inclusive of claim 1. but we are bound to try only the issue before us and that is claim 4. You may have much to say by way of argument or not, T don’t know in respect of the construction of claim 4 in the light of the specifications, but we are only dealing with claim 4 here and it would only tend to confuse the issues to in- terject possibly something that is not in the case. Of course, this particular question is a matter of no consequence, Mr. Offield: It is simply the questions that are going to follow from this particular question. Every element of claim 4 is in claim 1 except the last clause. “the rod operating to restrict.” Mr. Rice: Your Honor will also notice a slight difference in the definition of the stirrer. Claim 1 savs “formed as a stirrer,” whereas claim 4 says “constituting a stirrer.” Now there may be a very large amount of argument in the question as to the difference between “formed as a stirrer” and “constituting a stirrer.” The Court: Yes, IT understand that perfectly. Mr. Rice: And for that reason and to eliminate the argument on that point, we have, inasmuch as our rights are fuliy 80 protected here as to this lamp hy claim 4, in order to simplify this case as much as possible The Court: T think it straightens itself out very readily. If claim 4 and claim 1 have the same elements why you don’t gain anything by dragging in claim 1. Insofar as they have different elements, then you must confine yourself to claim 4. T will confine the expert testimony to claim 4. Mr. Offield: That question will be revised then. The Court: That question may be deemed revised as referring solely to claim 4, Mr. Cox. The Witness: T will first call attention to the Lee patent, 619,046. Q. 5. What is the date of it? A. Issue February 7, 1899. By referring to the left side of the figure it will be noted that the carbid is contained in the bottom of a receptacle marked L. ; Mr. Rice: Is that set up in the answer? T don’t seem to have a copy of it. T don’t think it is in the answer, but it was in the Pitts burgh case, go ahead. The Witness: The water is introduced through a pipe W, which comes up through the bottom of a cone shaped element marked M’. There is a central opening, M, through which the water exudes or flows and by this cone shaped element the water is distributed uni- formly to various parts of the vessel in which it is contained, There Crt ha eo OS ae - FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 45 are a number of small tubes, M-2, which issue from this, 81 and they go into the carbid mass at various elevations. Some enter above the carbid and some open up near and beneath the surface and others go down almost to the bottom. The Court: This is for generating. The Witness: This is in a stationary pi at, ves, sir, Tt shows the idea, however, that the introduction of the mouth of the tube into the mass was practiced at that time. The broad idea of introducing the water into the center of the mass is certainly shown in this patent. The Court: Can you put your finger on any reference in the specification to that particular feature? The Witness: Commencing on page 1, line 108, the specification reads: “At the upper end of this tubular extension is a distributing M into which the water is delivered. The lower part of this dis- tributer has a cone M, formed in it so that the water delivered at this apex flows down over the sides to the periphery at the bot- tom of the distributer chamber M. From the bottom of this chamber pipes, M-2, extend downwardly, these pipes being of different lengths and having their discharge openings at different distances from the center of the carbid chamber 1, so that the water, after flowing down the distributing cone M, passes ont through these pipes and is de- livered into the mass of carbid contained within the chamber at points all through the mass. Mr. Rice: Your Tlonor, since this has been read into the record, I would like to have him, if he will be so kind, read in 82 the next ten lines and T think that will dispose of that. The Witness: I will do so. “The mass of carbid is thus acted upon by the water at all points and will produce gas simul- taneously through the whole mass. I thus achieved two points, first, the rapid manufacture of the gas and secondly, in the utilization of the whole mass of carbid, and avoid the retardation of the work which is caused by a crust forming upon the top of the body of carbid when the water is only supplied at one or two points.” This patent was referred to simply for the broad idea of intro- ducing the water at various points into the center of the mass through tubes having open mouths in the mass. In the Buffington-British patent, (which is No. 6), various forms are shown, This is No, 23,802 of October 15, 1897. Calling atten- tion to Fig. 7, the carbid is contained in the chamber marked 3, T believe, and it has in its center a tube 4 which has a mouth near the bottom of the carbid charmber. This tube has a number of orifices in it throughout its entire height and the tube is surrounded by a porous material, or absorbent, for inereasing the distribution, and thus the water is introduced at various points in the mass. In Fig. 2, also, the open mouth of the tube is near the -bottom of the carbid container. _ In Bundy, 608.571, issued August 9, 1898, the tube is imbedded in the mass, having an apertured tube FE in the carbid container, C. The water is introduced through a pipe from above and the SA PLA TIES NT BILL LG EILEEN IEG STE IGE TAS, LSPA ES LIOR EN RSEE STH i ENYA SAT OTR, A HON ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. ET AL. VS. apertures are located the en ire length of the tube from top 83 to bottom so that the water will enter at all points. In Baulieu, 611,885, issued October 4, 1898. This is an- other stationary plant but it shows a pipe. O, which has a water tube and the lower end of this tube is located near the bottom of the mass. Now the The Court: Before we leave those, what function do these tubes perform ? The Witness: They introduce the water into the mass of carbid and the ecaking, and all that would be the same as in any instance of that construction. The idea of introducing it, or imbedding the tube in the mass of carbid. is shown in the various constructions, The phrase is, I believe. ‘a water tube extending from the former a considerable distance into the latter and adapted to be im- bedded in the mass of carbid,” In the Handshy Patent. No. 91.152, issued August 5, 1892. This is a lamp patent. a portable small lamp. and has a water reser- voir Bat the top and a carbid container D at the bottom, with a water tube TT extending from the water reservoir to the carbid con- tainer. The lower end of the tube TI extends a considerable dis- tance into the carbid container and is embedded in the mass of ear- bid. A central rod D’ is in this particular form shown in the draw- ing secured to the floor of the carbid chamber and extends up through the water tube and has at its upper end a valve G. This co-operates with a valve seat formed in a diaphragm F, which is described as being flexible and constructed in this case, | believe. of rubber. The gas pressure in the gas chamber, of course, varies with the S4 generation of gas and the theory of operation is that as the pressure beneath the diaphragm increases the diaphragm is raised up to meet the valve and thereby throttles the flow of water and reduces the generation of gas until the balance has been re stored. As the question is limited to this feature of the mouth of the water tube. or the tube being imbedded in the mass, | will not refer further at this point to this patent. In Iden patent, 637,934, issued November 28, 1899, the earbid container is marked B and the water chamber is above it and marked A’. There is a funnel shaped tube leading from the water chamber to the carbid container marked 63 and this water tube extends a considerable distance into the carbid container, and in all proba- bility would be imbedded in the mass either at the very beginning or soon after the commencement of operation. The leneth of the tube can be noticed from Fig 2 and by laving this off in Fig, 1 it would appear that the tube extends a considerable distance and would probably be imbedded in the mass of earbid. In the Strakosh patent, 610,150. issued August 13, 1898, is shown a portable lamp of the bievele type, or similar type, and is pro vided with a drum at the bottom having a capaciy? for three carbid -artridges, so-called. In this patent the carbid cartridge is described as a paste-board, or paper container, having carbid in it and this, in the operation of the lamp, is punctured by the lower pointed ex- tremity of a part 12. This part is a FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 53 passes down through the water tube. The constructions shown in the drawings of the patent and the publication are precisely the same and I conclude that it is evidence that Schmitt knew that the wire would restrict and automatically control the flow of water through the water tube. In the Barratt British patent, No. 2699 of February 7, 1899, there is no description of the water tube and valve, the reason evidently being that the patentee was claiming a specific form of water trap in his water receptacle. Tlowever, the water tube and the central rod, or wire, G, are snown to be so proportioned in the drawing that the effect of the rod would necessarily be to constrict and control the flow of water in the water tube. Hallowes and Tucker, patent No. 644,910, which I have previ- ously analyzed, shows the water tube O, the outlet whereof ‘is located in the center of the earbid receptacle. Through this water tube in which the water flows upwardly is a rod H, whieh is manually con- trollable from the upper end of the lamp. The patentees say, com- meneing page 2, line 84: “The water inlet controlled by the plug K should be so proportioned with relation to the capacity of 97 the burner that a predetermined generation of gas will take place, which is sufficient to furnish a supply of gas to the burner corresponding to the capacity of the lighter, thus insuring a steady flow of gas to the burner, which effectually prevents flicker- ing, and produces an even steady flame. This equalization of the generating capacity of the lamp, and its gas consuming or burner capacity, renders the lamp automatic or self-controlling.” This patent, while it shows a valve, is dependent for its regulation upon the tube and the rod and the gas pressure operating upon the mouth of the tube in the patented construction in question. The parts are inverted in the sense that the flow is upwards instead of downwardy but this is another instance of the fact that the expedient of re- stricting the water tube by employing a central rod, and utilizing this combination to restrict and automatically control the flow of water in the water tube was a common and known expedient and apparently was known abroad and known here and published in both places. \nother patent showing the idea and describing in so many words the idea of restricting the flow of water in the tube by means of a central rod is the Watt Patent, No. 638,898. Tn this patent there is a water chamber above, carbid chamber beneath, a duct leading from one to the other, and a water tube or valve seat. G (the part performing both funetions) : passing down through this duct and valve seat is a rod or stem, 10, and the patentee says, commencing line 86, page 1: “The lamp is automatic and the feed of water is controlled by the flow of gas allowed by use of the gas valve.” 98 I would call particular attention to the fact that it is the gas valve, and not the water valve which renders. the lamp automatic, and it is obvious that the automaticity does not depend upon manual control of the gas valve. Manual control cannot be called automatic, and while this is a single sentence out of the ap- —_ LINO II OS FEO) rE Fae BI PR ELE SE GNI EL RNY Ae Se ECP aS 54 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. ET AL. VS. plication, it is abvious, T think. that the control of water is due to the proportioning of the water tube to the constricting wire. The same is true in the William patent, No, 619,814, issued Feb- ruary 21, 1809. In this patent there is a water receptacle, 4, be- neath which is a carbid receptacle 3. Leading fvom the water re- ceiver to the carbide container is a water tube 5, having longitudi- nally in the centre thereof a rod, G, which at ix lower end passes into a tubular extension, g. at the lower end of the water tube. The lower end of the rod is cut away on a taper at 13 so that near the upper end of the taper, the remaining cross section of the wire is less than at the lower end. The idea is that by changing the diameter, by moving the rod G vertically, or rotating it, the tube can be cleaned. In the normal operation the proportioning of the water tube and the rod apparently renders the lamp automatic. The Mosher patent No. 644439 describes this automatic regula- tion of the fiow of water by reason of a red restricting the water tube. In feet. the disclosure in this Mosher patent of that principle is extremely clear and probably more elaborate than necessary in a patent. Mr. Rice: This patent is also not set up in the answer, if vour Honor please. We have never seen this until this examination 99) began, | stuippose if this is received at all it will be on the same basis. We don’t know what is in it. The Court: Yes, only on the prior art. Mr. Offield: T was just able to get copies of that this morning. This is just showing the state of the art. The Witness: If it were not for taking too much space T would like to read most of the specification into the record, as the entire patent is explanatory of the principle in question. Selecting parts of the specification, however. the patentee says, commencing line 36, page 1, “In lamps ef this character, automatic regulation is usually dependent upon and it is accomplished by so arranging the delivery end of the water tube that an excessive development of pressure of gas will have the effect of checking the flow of the water, and it is to this feature of the lamp that the invention form- ing the subject of the present application relates. “The tube D. leads nearly but not quite, to the bottom of the generating chamler C. Into its lower end is tightly fitted a plug FE. for a central longitudinal aperture ¢, within which is located a loose fitting red, F, which is of such a length that it may recipro- cate within the aperture of the plug E, without being removed there- from. This red is provided with a head f, f', at each end preventing it from dropping out of the plug when the parts of the lamp are separated, and also preventing it from sliding upwardly into the tube, D, should the lamp be accidentally overturned. The rod, F, may be provided with annular grooves, G, or a plain rod 100) may be used as shown in Figure 6. In either case, the rod is preferably of such length that when the parts of the lamp are assembled it will be raised in the apertture of the plug by the contact of its lower end with the bottom of the generating chamber oo. REA SETTLE SLR EPS ONDINE 9 ag RINE PIE I a TR HSS RRR RED TRO APRON ARROYO RS EE = FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 55 “The upper end of the plug, E, is preferably sharply tapered as hown at TH, and across its apex there may be such a V-shaped notch, although this latter feature is not of importance if the length f the rod Fis such that its head, j, is raised in the assembling of he parts of the lamp as already described, and the head, f, raised lirectly upon the top of the plug, when the parts are assembled the V-shaped noteh, ¢?, will serve to admit the water to the central aper- ure of the plug. That is te say the rod is not used as a valve and erves none of the functions of a valve. “In use, the water being admitted to the tube, D, by the opening f the Valve d, finds its way through the contracted annular space round the rod I and sets up the requisite chemical action, This ischarge orifice is of so small area in cross section that the devel- pent of gas pressure within the generating chamber will entirely heck the flow of water through it when this pressure exceeds that f the column of water enclosed within the tube. “By the use of the rod several advantages are gained. I am able » reduce the width of the discharge orifice sufficient to secure this utomatic control of the water while extending it laterally so that very considerable amount of water riay pass through should the emands of the lamp require. The anuular form of orfice is referable.” Commencing the last line of page |: “By providing the rod with the annual grooves, G, the form of its surface is such that 01 its longitudinal reciprocation more effectually dislodges any dirt particles which may have settled into the orifice. The od Fy while being comparatively small, nevertheless has some con- derable weight and hence the jar to which a bieyele is subjected hen in use will the more readily set up a continuous longitudinal eciprocation of it.” From the foregoing it would seem that the Mosher patent dis- loses with much detail the operation of a rod located within a water ibe and so proportioned as to restrict and thus control the flow of ater to the carbid. By Mr. Offield: Q. Please state whether you find in the prior art any patents in hich the precise combination of elements as claim 4 in their precise ‘lation and having the same functions are found. in answering lis question you may consider that a straight wire projecting rough the water tube is the equivalent of the element tn the claim hich describes the rod as constituting a stir. A. The Marechal British patent, No. 29,405 cannot with con- dence be said to form an anticipation of Claim 4 for two reasons, though I think it of sufficient interest to mention it in connection ith this question. The British patent in question is evidently in- rested with connections between the water and carbid receptacles, nd apparently for that reason has omitted showing the complete weptacles. Tt is for that reason impossible to say where the pat- tee would have put the bottom of his carbid container, but it is rtain that the water tube extends a considerable distance into the 56 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. ET AL. VS. ‘arbide container, Whether it would be imbedded in the 102. mass would depend upon how large the receptacle is, and how much carbide would be put in it by the operator, Furthermore, it is not certain whether, as a practical matter, the central rod, Tl, could be operated as a stirrer, using the stirrer in the broad sense of your question with the rod terminating straight, instead of bent, as shown in the patent in suit. The rod would op- erate as a stirrer in this restricted sense if it were manipulated, al- though it is not shown to be within the grasp of the operator. [| mention this patent, therefore, not as an absolute anticipation, but as coming very close to it, and in practise it may quite possibly have heen an actual embodiment of what is described in Claim 4. The Handshy patent, No. 591,132 does, to my mind, form an embodiment of what is claimed in Claim 4. It has the water reser- voir, a receptacle for calcium carbid and a water tube extending from the water tube a considerable distance into the carbid_ re- ceptacle, all as recited in the claim. The water tube extends from the water container a considerable distance into the carbid con- tainer, and is adapted to be inserted in the mass of carbid in the receptacle and is shown to be thus imbedded. The Handshy patent also has a rod extending through the water tube and it does con- stitute a stirrer to break up slaked carbid around the outlet of the water tube as called for by the claim. In operation t!.e gas pressure in the Handshy lamp continuously moves the diaphragm, F, and water tube, H, up and down. The action, therefore, ix to create a relative movement of parts at the lower end of the water tube, and the action would be to disturb and break up the slaked carbid formed at the mouth of the 103. water tube. This patent recites that other constructions may be employed besides the precise one shown in the draw- ing. IIe says that the rod, G, may be fastened to the diaphragm E. Quoting from the specification commencing line 84, page 1, Handshy says: “This stem may be secured to the diaphragm, E, or it may ex- tend upwards from the valve and he secured to the top, A-2, of the chamber, B.” The rod is not movable, and yet it would have a stirring action in co-operation with the movable tube, and it would assist and eo- operate with the rod in producing a relative movement at a point where the sludge is formed, therefore, while it is stationary, I think it is not stretching things at all to regard it as having the function of a stirrer, or co-operating with the water tube to produce a stirring effect. Certainly the effect is there, and the rod contributes towerds the effect. The only remaining element in the recital in the c'aim is, “The rod operating to restrict and thus control the flow of water to the carbid as set forth.” The rod in Handshy does restrict the flow of water, having an external surface and occupying space within the tube, as in all the other patents in the art in which this efféet occurs, And the rod MELEE ELLE PELE LID EY LIE," AGERE TOES INE See ee Pree es. — FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 57 does control the flow of water, having in addition to the ordinary restricting effect the valve, f, which also co-operates with the tube. In the Schmitt-British patent No. 15,688, which has been pre- viously referred to, is to my mind a complete and accurate embodi- ment of all that is called for in Claim 4 of the patent in suit. The water reservoir is marked B in the patent drawing, the carbid con- tainer is marked A, and there is a water tube extending from 104. the water container to the carbid container. This is a two-part tube, a portion of which, G, in one form is shown as having o curve for avoiding the effects of vertical vibration. The remaining portion of the duct, or water tube, is the part F, at the bottom of the water tube, and this extends a considerable distance into the carbid container. This characteristic T have already referred to more at leneth, and it need only be said now that the mouth of the water tube is just about the middle of the container, considered vertically, that is, it is located about mid height of the carbid container, taken as a whole. The tube is adapted to be imbedded in the mass of carbid in the receptacle, and would operate exactly in that manner. The rod extending through the water tube called for by the claim is the part, b, and this rod extends through the water tube and con- stitutes a stirrer to break up slaked carbid around the outlet of the water tube. If we considered a straight rod to be a stirrer, as in your question, the rod is the Schmitt patent operates “to restrict and thus control the flow of water to the carbide.” In the first place the rod necessarily operates in this matter, and if there is any need for justifying this view of the matter I would call attention to the Dingler Journal publication. In my judgment, therefore, the Schmitt device embodies everything that is called for by Claim 4 and there is no teaching in Claim 4 that is not to be found in the Schmitt patented structure. As for the cleaning effect, the specification refers to this spe- cifically, for example, commencing at the middle of page 1: “The spindle, a, of the valve, F, has an actual hole 105. through which passes a wire or needle, /, which extends into the carbid: holder, A, and has at its upper end a button, c, by means of which it can be moved up and down from outside the lamp in order to clear the outlet opening, g, of the water supply pipe below the valve of lime, or other obstruction. By this means the lamp can always be kept in proper working order.” The patentee Schmidtt understood that his lamp would operate automatically, quoting from the middle of page 1: “By reason of the elevation of the water reservoir, B, above the carbid holder, A, a comparatively long water pipe between the said reservoir and the valve F° can be employed, and thereby a propor- tionate water column pressure maintained when the water in the res- ervoir B, is nearly exhausted, While the lamp is being used-the pres- sure of gas is dependent upon the supply of water to the carbid. That is to.say, when the pressure of gas in the carbid holder is equal to the pressure of the column of water, the supply of water naturally ceases; when the pressure of such gas is higher than the column of water, the gus escapes through the latter; and when the pressure of 8—323 ° ee TLE a Li 58 ABERCROMBIE & FETCH CO. ET AL. VS. gas is lower than that of the column of water, the supply of water takes place to the carbid holder in inverse proportion to the pressure, Every gas burner requires a certain minimum pressure for the com- plete development of its flame. This minimum pressure corresponds in my lamp to the pressure of the columm of water in the water sup- ply pipe, G.” There is no room for doubt, therefore, that Schimitt knew and ex- plained that the operation of his lamp was automatic, and did not depend upon the manual manipulation of the valve a. 106 The Court: I don’t get that. Where does it say it can be moved up and down? The Witness: That little rod is moved up and down. The Court: Tow? The Witness: By manipulating the little button ¢-1 on the top. The Court Yes. The Witness: And furthermore if the gas pressure gets excessive it forms a vent through which the water can actually be ejected if necessary, It is a sort of safety valve. It acts as a little weight and has a sort of little valve seat at the top here so that if the pressure should get too great and the burner would not take care of it, it would actually force the water up. The Court: [may not have caught this thing, but why doesn’t the Schmitt patent indicate the manual manipulation of the valve? That is what [ can’t get at. The Witness: It does. The valve is operated manually to shut off the water when you are through using the lamp. The Court: What does it mean here by what I asked you before? “By means of which it can be moved up and down from outside the lamp in order to clean the outlet?” The Witness: That is not the valve, your Honor, but the rod. The Court: IT understand, but now you are—— The Witness. Yes, the entire column. The Court: Supposing that outlet gets clogged up. Then what do you do? The Witness: You reciprocate the rod up and down or you rotate it. Mr. Offield: Here is a cross section of that sort of lamp. 107 We won't go into the authenticity and so forth of that lamp now, but I think we will agree for the purpose of the Court that that lamp shows the general construction of the Schmitt lamp. The Witness: Tam afraid T have not made it plain in my previous answer, the construction of the Schmitt lamp as regards the spindle 6. This is a valve which co-operates with the combined valve seat and water duct, marked I’. It is threaded near its upper end to work in a nut, which is not lettered, but which is seated upon the roof of the water receptacle. , The spindle, a, has a handle by whieh the spindle may be rotated in the nut and by thus rotating the spindle it may be raised and lowered to bring the valve into and away from the valve seat and water duct Ff. This is independent from the wire or rod, 6, which has a ball or button, ¢, at the upper end by which it may be either rotated, or practically reciprocated; in other words EIR IAN AES Wea TIRE ERI LEILA Ne RP RAN pH Ns Be gf SONU te Pe Pe NG ee “a there are two independent parts, one of which constitutes a manually operated valve mechanism, while the other is a rod which restricts the water duct and is movable both vertically and rotatably to stir, and break up the flaked carbid around the mouth of the water tube, assuming always that a straight rod can constitute a stirrer. Is that plain, your Tlonor? The Court: Yes, | understand now. Does that finish your answer? The Witness. Yes, sir. The Court: Then we will suspend until tomorrow morning, Adjourned at 4:50 P.M, until Wednesday, January 6th, 1915, at 10:30 A. M. FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 59 108 Trial Resumed. New York, Wednesday, January 6, 1915—11:30 A. M. Howarp M. Cox, resumes the stand, Direct-examination continued by Mr, Offield: Q. 9. Have vou examined and do vou understand the structure and operation of the defendants’ lamp introduced in evidence in this case? A. T have and I do. Q. 10. Please state what factors enter into the regulation and eon- trol of the water in the defendants’ lamp? A. To save time, T made a list of those and will refer to the list. The first element of control is the valve which is formed at the lower end of the tube which has a thread which works in the roof of the water container, This must be differentiated and kept distinct from the water tube which descends from the floor of the water chamber into the carbid container, The valve by being rotated, seats and rises from a valve seat located at the floor of the water container, The second thing which contributes to the flow of water is the back pressure generated in the carbid container as the gas is formed, The third element is the drawing effect of the carbid in the con- tainer, It will he understood that the earbid has an aflinity for water and tends to draw the water down through the tube. The fourth element is the restriction of the orifice by the rod which extends down through the water tube, The fifth element is the obstructive characteristic of the 109 ash or sludge which forms at the bottom of the water tube and this tends to hoid back the down flow of water. The sixth element is, the rod which T have just mentioned serves to clean the orifice when it is obstructed and of course helps to keep the flow going. The seventh element is the weight of the water column or hy- draulie head. Just how much effect this has, T do not know and in my opinion it is a moot question, but it apparently has an effect, _ The eighth element which contributes to affect the flow at least, is the vibration to whtch lamps of this general character are sub. 60 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO, ET AL. VS. jected in general use. Those are all of the factors entering into the water control that | have in mind at present. Q. 11. Please state whether or not all of the factors which enter into the water control in defendants’ construction are also found in the lamp of the Schmitt-British Patent? A. These elements are all found in the Schmitt-British Patent, and the operation and the co-operation in the British Patent is ex- actly the same as | have just described. Referring particularly to the drawings of the British Patent, the valve is formed at the lower end of the hollow stem a. This co-op- erates with the valve seat which is formed at the upper end of the water F. This valve may be raised by rotating the handle which appears just above the top of the water container. As to back pres- sure of gas, the action is obvious. Gas generated in the carbid con- tainer has but two possible outlets, one through the burner and the other through the inlet, and the pressure of gas generated in 110 ~~ the carbid container of course tends to restrict the flow into the carbid container. As to the third factor. to wit, the absorptive power of the carbid, this is present in the Schmitt lamp, for the water tube outlet is in the earbid container and is about mid-high of the container. As to the fourth factor, to wit, the restriction of the orifice by the central rod, the operation in the Schmitt-British Patent lamp is ob- vious and was explained yesterday. The parts assembled as they are must operate in this way and while the British Patent does not en- large on this in words, the publication which was contained in the German Technical Journal, and was evidently made by Mr, Schmitt, actually describes the restricting or retarding action of the water and the rod in the water pipe. As to the fifth factor, to wit, the stoppage of flow by the carbid, it is evidence that as soon as the mouth of the water tube becomes im- hedded in the carbid, whether this happens at the very beginning or soon thereafter, the obstructive effect of the carbid will be present. As to the sixth factor, the effect of the rod in cleaning the orifice through the water tube. This is described by Schmitt in his patent and was one of the things he had in mind especially described, The water head is the next factor and that is naturally present. the water = a free duct from the water compartment to the carbid cham- er. As to the vibration, the Sehmitt patent shows the device in the form of a bicvele lamp which has a great deal of vibration, possibly more than any miners’ lamp. At any rate, the lamp in use is cer- tainly vibrated. T find, therefore, that all the factors enter- 111. ing into the operation of the defendants’ lamp are found in the Schmitt-British Patent. Q. 12. T hand vou a certified copy of the file history of the origi- nal patent No, 821.580 and will ask vou to state the elements in can- celled claim 1 of the original patent? Mr. Rice: T object to the question. (Diseussion between Court and Counsel.) — eet 2 PN Oa UI RR mo Se se YS A RAEN ARMOR ee PE ae Oe use a DPR TS PERE ORE ee BY at Tod Bree? 1 eeQe AS SONOMA pees ww FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 61 The Court: Suppose you first offer your File Wrapper in evi- dence, : Mr. Offield: I withdraw the question. By the Court: Q. 15. Refer to the File Wrapper you have before you, also the defendants’ lamp, and point out what elements in Claims 1 and 6 in the File Wrapper are found in Defendants’ lamp? A. The original and cancelled Claim 1 defines a structure having a water reservoir, a receptacle for calcium carbid, a water duct or tube extending from the former into the latter and a wire in said duct to tube restricting the same to permit only a predetermined quantity and rate of flow of water in the carbid, as set forth, This is a claim of four elements, the water chamber, the carbid container, the water tube and the restricting wire. It is recited that the rod restricts the tube to permit only a predetermined quantity and rate of flow. Q. 14. Now, take Claim 6 and make the comparis6n. A. Defendants’ lamp has these four elements of the claim, and these co-operate with each other and function in the manner called for by original cancelled Claim 1. Referring to cancelled Claim 6, it reads: 112 “In a lamp of the kind described, the combination with water reservoir and receptacle for calcium carbid, of a tube extending from the former to the latter, so as to imbed in the mass of carbid contained in the receptacle, the rod extending from a point outside the lamp, through the tube to the carhid receptacle, restrict- ing the tube to permit only a pre-determined quantity and rate of flow of water into the carbid, and a valve to cut off the supply of water to the receptacle, as set forth.” It will be seen that this clause brings into the combination in ad- dition of the elements of Claim 1, the valve to cut off the supply of water to the receptacle. It also states that the tube extends into the carbid contained so as to be imbedded in the mass of carbid. The de- fendants’ structure has all of these elements operating in exactly the sane way as called for in original cancelled Claim 6, Q. 15. Please state whether or not Claims 1 and 6 cancelled from the original specification were both rejected upon the Baldwin prior patent 656,874 as showing the same combination of elements? A. These claims were rejected on Baldwin No. 655.874, also Peck No, 622.015 and the Schmitt-British Patent No. 15,688, In the orig- inal rejection another patent was cited by the examiner but the appli- cants were back of it. Mr, Offield: That concludes my direct examination of this witness and 1 would like to ask the Court if it will he proper to introduce the book of patents as one exhibit instead of marking each 113 individual patent. The Court: It is all right as far as T am concerned. Mr. Offield: Defendants’ counsel offers in evidence all of the —— SPER MP REPRO ERLE AM OLENA IS, SOEAE Ne IMA CEES LAER OUT 62 ABERCROMBIE & FITCILE CO, ET AL. VS. yrior art patents referred to by the witness Cox, and asks that they marked collectively Defendants’ Exhibit \. (Marked Defendants’ Exhibit A.) The half section last referred to by the witness and representing defendants’ construction is offered in evidence. (Marked Defendants’ Exhibit B.) The German publication entitled Dingler’s publication is offered in evidence. (Marked Defendants’ Exhibit C.) The File Wrapper of the Baldwin patent 21,580, is offered in evidence and marked Exhibit D. (Marked Defendants’ Exhibit D.) The File Wrapper of the re-issue patent to Baldwin is offered in evidence. (Marked Defendants’ Exhibit FE.) Cross-examination by Mr. Rice: s X Q. 16. In vour opinion Mr. Cox, is it possible to have a wire rod passing through the water tube of the carbid lamp and have that rod so small in diameter with respect to the bore of the tube that it will not restriet and control the water flow? A. Yes, sir. it will he possible. A hat pin in a water main would not affect it, whether that would be possible in a lamp. T can conceive it will be possible, ves. X Q. 17. Now, referring to the Handshy Patent, T under- 114 stand it to be your position that the rod G? is the water con- trolling and restricting rod—am T correct? A. Yes, sir. X Q. 18. So that as you understand the construction of that lamp, the flow of water from the water receptacle into the carbid ts controlled and restricted by the rod G?? A. Yes, sir, but not solely. X Q. 19. Not solely? A. The valve has a function there and T think the function in the manner described. X Q. 20. Then it is your position that the water flow in_ the Handshy construction is restricted and controlled by the rod and the valve? A. And the back pressure and the carbid in the bottom of the lamp and the rest of the elements that I mentioned in the list which T gave earlier in my testimony as affecting the flow of water in a lamp of this character. X Q. 21. Well, admitting the action of the other elements but omitting them from consideration at this point, a certain definite flow of water occurs in the Handshy lamp from the reservoir down through the tube and this flow is controlled by the valve and the rod —that I understand is vour position? A. Yes, sir. they both contribute and function it. X Q. 22. Is the rod in your opinion, necessary to the action of the Handshy construction, that is to say, will the valve control the flow if the rod is not ; resent? >> PREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 63 A. Not nearly so well, the flow of water in the tube was well des- cribed by Mr. Proctor and it is much easier to control the flow if you employ a large water tube and have a rod in the tube, you get a much greater frictional surface on the inside of the tube and you 115. get the additional frictional surface of the exterior of the rod and the action of the valve would be much more sensitive. X Q. 23. Do you find in the specification of the Handshy Patent any statement that the rod restricts and controls the water flow in that construction? A. I do not find any description in the Handshy Patent or expla- nation of such function. it is simply showing the construction of the device. X Q. 24. It is your position then, that the rod is essential to the operation of the Handshy lamp, is that correct? A. I would not regard it as essential to the suecessful operation of that lamp, but it would certainly be much more precarious and un- certain in its operation if it were not present. X Q. 25. Now referring to the publication from Dingler’s jour- nal, | understand it to be your position that the lamp shown in this publication is the commercial form if you like, of the lamp disclosed in the Schmitt-British Patent—is that correct? A. The publication is somewhat earlier in date than the patent, and whether it was later changed or not, I do not know. In fact, it isan assumption that it is the same Schmitt, but as a mere matter of assumption T suppose that was a commercial form that he used at the time that he had it described. X Q. 26. T note in your testimony, if T understand it, that you were referring to the publication to help out the patent and the patent to help out the publication. I therefore assume that it is your position that these lamps are identical ? A. I referred to the publication to show that Schmitt knew 116 and described in words the fact that the rod would restriet and control the flow in the tube. That was all I think T intended, X Q. 27. And you therefore interpreted the patent as showing a restricting rod although the patent does not in terms describe that construction ? A. Yes, sir. X Q. 28. Now, referring to this Dingler publication, what is the part marked /? A. That is a center straining tube, so described in the translation attached to the publication. X Q. 29. In this Dingler article, it states, does it not, that in filling the lamp, “Care should be taken during the filling operation not to let any carbid fall into the center straining tube”? A. Yes, sir, you are quoting from the translation. X Q. 30. And when the lemp shown in this Dingler article is assembled, the water feeding tube, and the needle passing through it descends into this central straining tube, does it not? A. That appears to be the construction. X Q. 31. So that they are located so that the water feed tube and the needle are when the lamp is assembled located in this center straining tube? _—_— _ — . . — 5 AES AIA REP ALLY RE RTO 64 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO, ET AL. VS. A. That is correct. X Q. 32. Referring to the Gaston Patent, what is the authority for the statement that the tube 37 is open at the bottom? A. I do not know that I have any authority in the specification, but the d-awing, it is plain, and it normally shows the tube which terminates at that point and T assumed that to be the construction, I think it is rather well warranted. X Q. 33. Pure assumption? A. Pure assumption, but from reading the drawings one would be pretty well warranted in that assumption. TTowever, there are aper- tures along the side. X Q. 34. Then it would be quite possible for the water to 117 = escape, not from the bottom there, but from the apertures along the side? A. Yes, sir, it is an assumption. By the Court: X Q. 35. Let me ask you this—as a matter of draughtmanship, is there anything at the end of that tube from the draughtsman’s standpoint that would indicate the opening? A. There is, because in the first place if vou had nothing to close it, you would have a line showing the dise which would close it. The draughtsman would have to show a second line below in order to show a dise closing the end, unless he had a gasket which was fitted up inside, and I think it would take an expert watchmaker to do that in sueh a stmnall construction. | hardly think that Mr. Rice will say that he believe- there is anything to stop it at the bottom. If there is anything to stop the bottom, it would have to be in the shape of a ring which was fitted up around the tube and [ think it would be quite unlikely that any such construction would be there. By Mr. Rice: X Q. 36. Now if this drawing were mechanically exact, the lines would be carried down, would they not, by showing the inside as well as the outside of the diameter of that tube. In other words, below the broken part, you have nothing which indicates that that tube is not solid, so far as the drawing is concerned? A. Indicated above—— X Q. 37. Never mind above: I am talking about below-——what I want to know is, if this drawing is to be construed as absolutely cor- rect, then you should have two lines down the outside here (indicat- ing) to show that as a matter of fact that was the tube? 118 A. I made a good many patent drawings and I have in my early days made them, and I always thought that to put too many dotted lines confused. My assumption is not a particular drawing, there is nothing to indicate that it is closed and the actual normal successful way te make it would be to make it open and it would be to my mind a violent assumption that there was nothing in there. I am not saying that it is open, except that it would natur- ally be open. RGR PRIETO ALG IE IES NSS ERE LACORS TT IELTS ELSA LLC GICAL LEE IE _ FREDERIC FE. BALDWIN ET AL. 65 X Q. 38. If it were open, what would be the use of the perfora- tion from the bottom? A. To get better distribution, you would have more points of con- tact with the water and the earbid. X Q. 39. Which proposition assumes, does it not, that the tube would be full of water to get your better distribution ? A. I assume the tube is full of water from the operation. This describes a water tube. X Q. 40. The file wrapper to which you have just referred shows does it not, that the Schmitt Patent, concerning which you have tes- tified was cited by the Patent Office against the Baldwin original application which matured into Patent No. 821,520, and it appears that the patent was allowed? A. Yes, sir. Re-direct-examination by Mr. Offield: Re-D. Q. 41. Please state whether or not you found any statement in the re-issue Baldwin Patent to the effect that the size of the wire used in the restricted tube may be varied? A. Commencing with line 31, page 2, of the re-issue patent, the patentee says, “This retarding friction may be regulated by varying the size of wire used.” 19 Ava L. Hansen, called as a witness on behalf of the defend- ants, after being duly sworn, testifies as follows: Direct examination by Mr. Offield: (). 1. Please state your name, residence and occupation ? A. Factory manager of the Justrite Manufacturing Company, 35 years old, residence Evanston, Llinois. (). 2. Ilow long have you been connected with the Justrite Manu- facturing Company ? A. Five vears, since we started in the manufacturing business. Q. 3. When did the Justrite Manufacturing Company first sell a lamp of the kind as offered in evidence in this case, as illustrating defendants’ lamp? A. In July, 1911. Q. 4. To whom was the first sale of your acetylene lamp for miner’s use made? A. Funk Brothers, Chicago Heights, Illinois. Mr. Offield: Will you admit that that sale was made July 22nd, 1911. Mr. Rice: The fact is not controverted. Q. 5. I show you a cross sectional model of an acetylene lamp and will ask you to state who made the model, and what care and pro- cedure was taken in the manufacture of the same and also if it was taken from any particular design of previous lamp? Mr. Rice: 1 would like to know the purpose of the question, if your Honor please. Mr. Offield: My only purpose is, Mr. Hansen took the Schmitt 9—323 a PHI PREPS ANU PERLE PE RIES IG SH PI ERTS EIT NORIO OID 66 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. ET AL. VS. patent and followed it up as closely as he could and made this lamp from the Schmitt drawing. 120 The Court: For illustration in this suit? Mr. Offield: For illustration in this suit. Now, if your Honor is satisfied With the operation and construction and the de- tails of that Schmitt lamp, there is no use of going into this feature, By the Court: Q. 6. I think if this is a correct model it will be helpful. A. This lamp was built and constructed yery minutely from the patent drawing of the Schmitt lamp, and was turned over to one of the best men we have in our factory, under my instruction, and every part of it has been measured up very carefully and the details of it taken up at the same time the other lamps that were made to operate, to see that everything was perfect. The same as the working drawing from the Sehmitt patent. The Court: Is there any particular in which that model which you have in your hand is different from the drawing in the Schinitt patent? Mr. Offield: I will tell the Court this. The only controversy I presume that will be made about this lamp is that the size of the rod in that model will be alleged to be larger than the size of the rod in the Schmitt structure. That is the only controversy. The Witness: There is absolutely only one difference and that is that the draftsman in making this drawing, in the Schmitt patent, had drawn a straight line through the sectional part of the tube in order to avoid conflict. By drawing the straight line showing 121. a very thin wire, whereas it would not be practical to have a wire that thin for fear that in riding a bicycle that wire would be thrown right out. So it was necessary to have enough frie tion there to hold it in and you will further notice that the imbedded tube is shown in the same position as the one in the drawing which is practically imbedded in the carbid. Q. 7. Please state whether or not the wire as shown in the Schmitt patent would stay up in the tube as illustrated in the Schmitt patent if the wire were as thin as that shown in the drawing? A. No, the drawing shows that the ball of the valve is 3/18 of an inch above, it is suspended in the air, and there is no friction shown there to show the suspension, so the thinness of that wire would not be practical. Mr. Offield: I offer the one-half section of the Schmitt lamp m evidence. Mr. Rice: I object to the title on the ground that it is misleading. Mr. Offield: Well, I will put it in as Hansen model of Schmitt lamp. Mr. Rice: No objection to that. (Marked Exhibit F.) Q. 8. Please state whether or not the acetylene lamp offered in evidence in this case as of the defendants’ manufacture, and identified fy * — a on - ee CSR eS SEES STE re Eee wT Fee FEWER IIT AWPU A Ee CPIM ETN ELAM BR BRA RA, OT | el FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 67 as Complainants’ Exhibit 2, has a valve mounted upon it which is capable of regulating and controlling the flow of water, and until it is so regulated and controlled the flow of the water to the 122 carbide, and in answering the question, you must illustrate to the Court the fact that the flow may be regulated by rais- ing or lowering the valve? A. Yes, sir, it can shut off and regulate the water flow by turning the valve on the upper part of the water tank. It is also done the same in the Schmitt construction (Witness illustrates). Now, in operation it will shut off the valve tight and it would open it up about a quarter of a turn and that would give about a three-quarter inch flame. And when the carbide is exhausted, you give it another quarter of a turn, Q. 9. Now, open that up to show that there is a fast flow through the tube? A. (Witness indicates.) Then it can be shut off entirely (Wit- ness indicates), Q. 10. Please state how the cleaning rod in the defendants’ lamp is operated by the miners and is intended to be operated. A. In all my experience in going to the mines they are always operated as a pump. The miner reaches up and pumps it in place after turning it. (Witness indicates. ) Q. 11. Please state if the lamps manufactured by the Justrite Manufacturing Company have always been primarily valve contro! lamps? A. They have always been, we have never made them any other way. (). 12 Please state whether or not at the time the Justrite Manu- facturing Company placed their lamps upon the market, if Frederic E. Baldwin, the complainant in this case, or his licensee, the John Simmons Company, had a lamp upon the market adapted for use by miners for cap wear and similar as to general size as your lamp, which had a valve control? 123 Mr. Rice: Object to the question. I do not think the wit- ness has been qualified as yet to say what was on the market. The Witness: Not io my knowledge. The Court: That is, July 1911? Mr. Offield: Yes, sir. By the Court: Q. 13. Where had you been, had you been at the mines? A. We conceived the idea of making a miner's lamp the latter part of 1910 and during the time from the latter part of 1910 until the time we made and delivered lamps, we had made a very full tudy of it, went to the mines in all parts of the country and seen what the requirements of the miners were, and from that we con- structed our lamps. Q. 14. Did you see any of the Baldwin lamps. A. We had not seen any Baldwin lamps until T had already re- — LTV ETOP IL A AP COLD tae EG AGS Th Te om Trp ES EES SEIN SG Et Are Ie 68 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. ET AL. V8. ceived orders from some of our customers on the lamps that we were now making. Q. 15. When did vou first see a Baldwin lamp? A. T have a letter there—— Q. 16. IT mean you yourself? A. [think it was the first part of 1911, one of our customers sent me one. The letter says, 9th of January 1911. Some customer wrote me and sent me a sample of the lamp. Q. 17. What was the appearance of that lamp? A. That was the same as the Baldwin lamp, practically the same. Q. 18. That is now in suit? A, Yes, sir. Q. 19. But whether there were any other Baldwin lamps around, I suppose you do not know? A. Well, I had not seen any up to that time until afterwards I saw numerous lots of them. Recess until 2:10 P.M. 124 After Recess, at 2:20 P. M. A. L. Hansen, resumes the stand. Direct examination by Mr. Oflield (continued) : Q. 20. Prior to the date that vou first began to design an acetylene lamp for your company had you had any previous experience in the designing, or constructing of either gasoline or acetylene generating apparatus- A. Yes, IT have had a great deal of experience in running of the factories, and in the manufacture and design of acetylene generators, and gasoline lighting systems of all descriptions. I have taken several patents of that kind. Q. 21. Please state with what company you were connected that was engaged in this line of work? A. The Acorn Brass Manufacturing of Chicago and George W. Deener of Chicago. (). 22. How did your company happen to go into the manufacture of acetylene miner’s lamps? A. Why. in the vear of 1910 a hardware jobber in Chicago wrote in a letter to us as to whether we would be in a position to manu- facture a certain lamp and IT wrote back to him that we were in position to manufacture anything in the sheet metal line, so we asked him to submit us a sample of some description, or a sketch of anything that he may have. Te sent me a sample lamp, which was known as the Black Diamond Lamp at that time and asked me to quote him prices in ten thousand lots and we had gone along for a long time trving to negotiate a deal with him and finally, for credit reasons, we passed him up, and from what he had told me I had gathered that there was an open field for a good acetylene lamp in the mine business. 125 Q. 23. Now, at the time that you began your work upon a miner’s acetylene lamp in 1910, how many acetylene lamps EERO LEE LEE LEME IAS RE PIES OEE CLIO OPEL SSO MONDE LO NIALL PLEA! SAO —_ FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 69 for miners’ uses of the character involved in this suit were upon the market? A. Why, nine or ten, as near as I can recollect the names of them. Q. 24. Please give us the names of those to the best of your recol- lection which were on the market in 1910 or 1911? A. There was the Baldwin lamp, the Victor lamp, Bright Light, Maple City, Pathfinder, Simplex, Blesser and Scranton. These are just from recollection. Q. 25. About how many lamps are on the market to-day of this same type, that is a miner’s lamp of different makes? A. About twenty of them as near as I can recollect them. Q. 26, Please name those that are on the market at this time that were not being made in 1910 or 1911? A, The Czar lamp, Grier Brothers, Guy Dropper, Autolight, Ever- ready, Stein, Springfield, and a lamp made in Oshkosh, I don’t recol- lect tho names, and another lamp made in Danville, the name of which IT do not recall and the Duplex made in Pittsburgh, and the mine worker’s lamp made in Iowa. Q). 27. What lamps had you seen prior to the time that you first saw a Baldwin lamp, that is, a miner’s lamp? A. T had seen that Bright Light and Scranton lamp and the Path- finder, I believe. They are made in Pennsylvania down here, and of course T have seen any amount of bicycle lamps and T have had a great deal to do with bievele lamps. Q). 28. And do vou wish the Court to understand that the lamp offered here in evidence was designed by you before you ever 126 saw a Baldwin lamp? A. T do. The design of it you can very readily see that up to this time there is no manufacturer who made a lamp of that design. Q. 29. That may he perfectly true, but my question pertained more to the interior construction of the light. Did vou design the interior construction of the defendants’ lamp offered in evidence here before vou ever saw a Baldwin lamp of this character? A. T did, ves. long before. Q. 30. Are oil lamps used to any extent in the coal mines of this country to-day ? A, Why, they are in certain districts, about fifty per cent. Tn the anthracite region we have a great many oil lamps and in other states seventy-five or eighty per cent of acetvlene lights and in others again they are entirely acetylene lights. Different districts, taking it all the way through, T presume the acetylene, according to the Union ae Report would be about seventy-five per cent of acetylene amps. . 31. Are you of an inventive turn of mind, that is, have you had experience in devising and making various forms of different me- chanical structures? A. That has been my position at every factory that T have ever 2 aw of, getting up and designing and manufacturing new articles. Q. 32. Without reference to the number of different articles that POP IIER ET TBE EL POUL EAE AT RTLD TO PEPIN LAA EEL 2 EN IN ANGE tO 79 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. ET AL. VS. you have designed where no patents have been taken out, can you sta‘e generally as to the number of inventions which you have made where patents have been applied for upon them? Mr. Rice: I object, if your Tlonor please, as irrelevant. 127 The Court: Overruled. What is it on, simply on a ques tion of credibility ? Mr. Offield: Not so much credibility, your Honor. IT simply wanted to show by this witness that he is a designer, that he is a man that has taken out a very great many patents, and that he has been in the mechanical field to offset anv inference that might be drawn that he saw a Baldwin lamp and reproduced a structure somewhat similar to it. Ido not want the Court to have that idea. He is an originator. The Court: This question is immaterial. He has already said that he has been emploved in factories for the purpose of getting up new constructions and states under oath that he did not see a Baldwin lamp. Mr. Ofiield: IT will withdraw the question. The Court: Unless that is contradicted, the fact, for whatever it may be worth, is accepted. Mr. Offield: T will withdraw the question as to the number of patents he has taken out. By the Court: Q. 33. Did vou, before your design of defendants’ lamp, examine any patents in the prior art? A. No, we didn’t until we got into the business, then when we saw there were other manufacturers—at first we had only seen two or three lamps. Afterwards we found there were eight or nine lamps on the market and we started to investigate and then we found that the Baldwin patent, that is the first we had seen of the Baldwin patent. and T told one of our customers and he purchased one 128 of the lamps for me in order to get it. That was the first we had known of the Baldwin lamp, by making a patent search. Q. 34. Well, what had you before you when vou made the lamp in question in the way of information either from physically seeing lights, or lamps, T should say, or from documents of any kind? Now, you have given us a list of the things that you had before you, now what else had you before you? A. Why, we made some table lamps, acetylene lamps and we made acetylene generators for house lighting and having had a great deal of experience with bievcle lamps of all descriptions that were being made at Kenosha, up near Chicago there, so T was very much familiar with the working of acetvlene. Q. 35. You mentioned seeing one or two patents. Do you remem- ber which they were? A. T saw all the patents after we made a search. Q. 36. T am talking now, as T understand vou, you actually de- signed a lamp similar in all respects to the present commercial lamp of the defendants? ; A. It is the same lamp. ates els ual cok celal ae Lae a Ls ale a ee ee oc rs tO TENSEI P TE AOS pees FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 71 Q. 37. The same lamp, before you saw a Baldwin lamp? A. Yes, sir, Q. 38. Now, you have said, if I understood you correctly, that before vou made thet design you had seen perhaps two patents? A. No, two or three lamps, your Honor. Q. 39. Oh, two or three lamps? A. Yes. Q. 40. So, as IT understand you, before you made the design you hadn’t seen any patents at all? A. No, then after T had seen that there were six or eight other miners’ lamps on the market, then I had a patent search made to see if there were any patents. 129 Q. 41. Now, since July, 1911, have you marketed these goods right along? A. Yes, sir, we have been in the market every day. Mr. Offield: Just one or two more questions, your Honor, and T will be through with the witness. By Mr. Offield: Q. 42. Does the Baldwin lamp as manufactured to-day, aud man- ufactured for sometime past, embody in a part of its construction a certain piece of mechanism that is covered by letters patent and manufactured by the John Simmons Company under license from your company ? A. There is. Mr. Rice: I object, if your Honor please, that is entirely irrelevant, Mr. Offield: The testimony is relevant in this respect Mr. Rice: If they want te go into that Mr, Offield: There is just one feature of this lamp makes it a practical commercial lamp for outdoor use without a glass reflector. The reflecting apparatus upon the front with the horizontally pro- jected flame is covered by the Buflington Patent. The Buflington Patent is owned by the Justrite Company and the John Simmons Company are operating under a license from the Justrite Company. The Court: What difference does it make? Mr. Rice: That is che reason I don’t think it ought to be in the case. You heard Mr, Offield’s statement of it. Now, if I were going to state the facts ur-ler which that license was given and 130 taken TI should state them entirely differently and if it +s material at all it may be necessary to put in a lot of testimony here to show what was done about that Buffington license and why it was taken and all that sort of thing, and taken as against my advice because the patent was invalid, to stop a row. The Court: I don’t see how it is involved in the issues here. Mr, Offield: Simply to show that that adds a very material feature to it. I will withdraw the question, however. My direct-examina- tion is closed. By the Court: Q. 43. Now, when was your company organized, Mr. Hansen? “ 2 Boe epee Peh othe Ae Ya ae Press. ROMER RBM ICUTI C8 — SE aureus ee tees eA DARI Lape OPeoth i Pr nea ARPS 72 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO, ET AL. VS. A. In the middle part of 1910 we started in the manufacturing business of automatic machinery and patent devices. Q. 44. You were in a general manufacturing business of that kind? A. We were; we were soliciting work from other manufacturers, Q. 45. Now, since then have you manufactured other goods besides these lamps? A. Oh, yes, other patented articles of all descriptions. Q. 46. Then these lamps simply represent one line, is that the idea? A. That is all. I may state that | have a great many patents on fire protecting devices? Q. 47. You have answered what I wanted to get at. Cross-examination by Mr. Rice: X Q. 48. You were present at the trial of the Grier case in Pitts- burgh, were you not? A. I was a part of the time, not the entire trial. 131 X Q. 49. And you were there when a mode] similar to this model was introduced, were you not? A. Yes. The Court: What number? Mr. Rice: This is Exhibit F, Hlansen model of the Schmitt lamp. X Q. 50. And you furnished that model to Grier Brothers, did you not? A. I let them borrow it, yes. X Q. 51. In other words, the model in evidence purporting to represent the Schmitt lamp in the Pittsburgh suit was supplied by you? A. Yes, that is right. X Q. 52. Was it made by the same workmen who made this? A. That is the same lamp. X Q. 53. This can’t be the same lamp because that lamp is in the Court of Appeals, that lamp is before the Court of Appeals in Philadelphia? A. They didn’t have a sectional lamp then, Mr. Rice, they had that solid lamp. We sold them a solid lamp. X Q. 54. Then the situation is that you made another lamp like this and you sold it to Grier Brothers Company? A. Yes, that is right. X Q. 55. And that lamp was put in evidence before Judge Orr while you were present there? A. That is right. X Q. 56. And that lamp had the same interior construction as this lamp has, did it? A. The same thing, they were made at the same time. X Q. 57. And by the same workmen? A. The same workmen. X Q. 58. I call your attention to a certain sheet that I have here, caJled “Directions for Operating Justrite Acetylene Lamp.” 132 ‘1 his is the direction sheet, is it not, which you sent out with your lamp of the type here in evidence? AIOE IRIS AGEL GTN RET Spt SESE SPN AATEC RFE BAER RITE ARE RUA BEET IRE REAR ORT —_ FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 73 A. Yes, that is right. Mr. Rice: I offer this direction sheet in evidence, if your Honor please, as Complainants’ Exhibit No. 13, “Justrite Direction Sheet.” (Marked Complainants’ Exhibit No. 138.) X Q. 59. Now, if 1 understood you correctly, you say that before you designed your mine lamp you visited a large number of mines to see what sort of lamps they were using; is that right? A. That is right, yes, sir. X Q. 60. What mines did you visit? A. The mines down in through Danville district in our own State there, right near by. We have a great many mines there. X Q. 61. And in none of these Danville mines did you find any Baldwin lamps in use? A. Well, Mr. Rice, I didn’t say that I visited the mines until I had already had the lamp designed. X Q. 62. Oh. A. You wont’ find that in my testimony. X Q. 68. You designed your lamp first and then visited the vari- ous mines afterwards? A. That is what I stated in my testimony. Q. 64. I didn’t so understand? A. Yes. X Q. 65. Now, was this lamp which is in evidence here, Complain- ants’ Exhibit No. 2, Defendants’ lamp, is this the first lamp de- signed ? A. No, there was one that was designed—we made a very few of them before that one. We have it in our ease there. 133 X Q. 66. So this is not the first lamp? A. There were very few made. These were some of the first ones sold. X Q. 67. Was this one of the first lamps you designed? Was this the first lamp you designed? A. I would have to see it, Mr. Rice. (Mr. Rice hands lamp to witness. ) The Witness: This is the first lamp. X Q. 68. This is the first lamp you designed? A. Yes. Mr. Rice: T call your Honor’s attention that this is the first lamp designed, so he says. You will notice how the stem is handled there. The Witness: There is the wire running right through it, vou see: that comes right down. . Mr. Rice: Ik is also flush. The Witness: No, it is not flush, it goes through. Mr. Rice: I will offer this in evidence. if your Honor please, as mplainants’ Exhibit 14, the first Justrite lamp. (Marked Complainants’ Exhibit. 14.) X Q. 69. Did any of these lamps of which you have given a list, ave the interior construction of the Baldwin lamp, so far as you Tecall ? 10—323 . >» =: ‘ os “3 74 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO, ET AL. VS. A. Why, yes, the ones, some of those first ones had a wire but the wire was threaded and in place of poking it up and down it was threaded all the way down. ‘The Bright Light, for instance, the wire is threaded that way. They all had a wire. XQ. 70. All had the wire choking the tube and in all 134 of them the end of the tube was imbedded in the carbid? A. I won’t say they were all imbedded in the carbid. There were some that had—lI think the Bright Light had some kind of a contrivance on the outside of the tube. X Q. 71. Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Shean in Pittsburgh regarding that Bright Light lamp? A. I know he was there, but I don’t know as I did. X Q. 72. Don’t you remember that Mr. Shean said that they did furnish Mr. Offield: 1 object to this line of testimony, your Honor. The Court: Let the question be asked. X Q. 73. Do you remember that Mr. Shean said that they did furnish this foraminous screen with the Bright Light lamp, but that this screen was thrown away by the miners? A. 1 don’t recollect that he ever said that, Mr. Rice, but I know that they had a foraminous screen on there.- | don’t know whether he ever said that. I was not interested enough in that Grier case to note the details of it. X Q. 74. Regarding this Bright Light lamp, you say that it had a foraminous screen that surrounded the end of the water tube? A. It had something very loose there that would fall out every time the man took the lamp out. X Q. 75. But all that was necessary to do to convert the Bright Light into a Baldwin, as a practical proposition, so far as the water feed was concerned, was to throw away the loose screen which fell out every time the miners opened the lamp, isn’t that right. " A. No, not according to my interpretation of Baldwin pat- ent. 135 X Q. 76. Never mind your interpretation of Baldwin patent; I am talking about the Baldwin lamp? A. I say that the rod is threaded. X Q. 77. And it also extends below the end of the tube, doesn’t it? A. It serews right down into it. X Q. 78. Does it extend below the end of the tube at all? A. Just the very point of it. X Q. 79. Just the point of it? A. Just the point of it, the lamps that I seen. X Q. 80. It didn’t extend so much below them as the Justrite? A, Well, that is the difference, that is not the same construction. X Q. 81. The point of the rod is the same. isn’t it? A. No, it has just a needle point on the Bright Light. There were others there, Mr. Rice; that was not the only one. Mr. Rice: That is all. Mr. Offield: That is all for the defendants. The defendants rest. PME LEI AMIS RMR EPEE SLED D (GRID IN FRED 4 PML AHMAR PORES RTS i FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 75 The Court: Mr. Offield, will you make a list for me of the patents which you have introduced here which were not before Judge Orr? Mr. Offield: Yes, sir, I will, your Honor, Mr. Rice: I think I can give that. The Court: If you will just tell me them now before Mr. Proctor starts in. Mr. Rice: T tuink T have those marked in my list here. The only patents which were before Judge Orr were the Lee patent, 619,046 ; the Hendsy patent, 591,182; the Peck patent, 622,015; the Schmitt- British patent, 15,688; the Gaston patent, 668,288; the Hallows and Tucker patent, 644.910; the Barrett-British patent, 2699; and the Williams patent, 619,814. 136 Complainants’ Rebuttal Proofs. ALFRED Proctor, recalled, testifies as follows: Direct examination by Mr. Rice: Q. 82. Referring to Defendants’ Exhibit F, Hansen model of Schmitt lamp, have you measured this model so that you can state how it compares in dimensions with the illustrations of the Schmitt- British patent? A. Yes, [ have measured the model and T find that in some respects i differs materially from being an exact representation of what the patent shows. For instance, this carbid container is about one- eighth of an inch shallower than the carbid container here in the patent and the water tube outlet projects about one-eighth of an inch, or three-sixteenths of an inch more than is shown in ‘'e patent, and accordingly the outlet is brought the sum of those amounts nearer the bottom. It is brought that much further toward a position where it might seem to sometimes be imbedded in the carbid. al- though I eall attention to the fact that even under those conditions it does not project very far. T also call attention to the fact that the wire which has been selected here, and also the bore of the outlet duct are sizes chosen practically exactly from the Complainants’ com- mercial lamp. If the drawing was sealed, it would be found that the bore in this model was twice as great as in the patent and the size of the wire about five times as great as shown in the patent. In other respects, that is, as to the reflector and reservoir, and those mat- ters, the model seems to he substantially in accordance with the draw- ing of the British patent. F Q. 83. Referring to the Dingler publication ean you pro- 127 duce an actual lamp which corresponds substantially with the lamp shown in that Dingler publication, and if so. please do so? _A. Here is a lamp which corresponds substantially with what is disclosed in the Dingler publication. Q. 84. Will you please state where you got this lamp? A. That is a lamp. which happened to be in my _ possession some years ago before I had any connection with this suit. I have 76 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO, ET AL. VS. one or two or three acetylene lamps of my own and a certain gentle. man, quite an old man who has given up bieycle riding, by the name of Mr, Scripture, gave me his bicycle appurtenances, including that lamp, and possibly one or two others, and I kept it with some other things I had. Mr. Rice: | offer this lamp in evidence as Complainants’ Exhibit, Lamp Schmitt tvpe, No. 15. The Court: That is taken subject to such examination as may be made by Mr. Offield, Mr. Rice: If your Honor please, it is offered for simply what it is worth, like the German publication. The Court: I will take it on that theory. Mr. Rice: Yes. The Court: I will take it as a lamp which Mr. Proctor said is sub- stantially in accord with the German publication. Mr. Rice: Exactly. nothing else. (Marked Complainants’ Exhibit 15.) Q. 85. Now, will vou please briefly describe that lamp? Answer. This lamp corresponds quite closely with a group 138 — of lamps of a certain type T have used and experimented with. T think T have bad a half a dozen or possibly four acetylene lamps for bicycles and motorcycles, all of which had substantially this principle of a water reservoir and a regulating valve and a drop feed dripping into the carbid chamber and generally through a foraminous screen as shown here. The idea of these lamps is to have a regulating valve that vou can turn with greater or jess precision, generally furnished with a pointer or indicator of some sort moving over marks or divisions as on this model and the practice was to find by experiment the right division and set it there and the usual result was that the fine adjustment of the valve hecame clogged and then you would have to let in more water by changing the adjust- ment and then after a few moments running it would be found that you had let in too much water and the lamp would be burning too brightly and smoking the reflector and possibly the gas escaping through the water tube so that according to my experience in the use of these lamps T never found one of them that was practically satisfactory from my standpoint. TI gave up using the lamps of that type. Q. 86. Describe the interior operation. The Court: This lamp, as T see, has on it “Schmitt’s original,” hasn’t it? Mr. Rice: T was about to ask Mr. Proctor when he closed his answer whether he put that on or not. The Witness: This lamp is just as I got it: T haven’t made any change of course. The Court: It says “Schutz mark” and under that “Schmitt's original,’ and some design there and that was there when 139 this gentleman gave you the lamp. The Witness: Yes. This lamp is equipped with a regulating valve all cat TEAR MR SPD Mote LET SLED IN HIT ABR OE ER HE RIOD PRE te _— a a FREDERIC E. BALDWIN ET AL. 77 by which the flow of water from the reservoir is controlled and the regulating valve is opened and closed by this pointer or indicator to the required amount. In that way the flow can be adjusted as I show now. T now have a drip feed of a certain amount and by open- ing the valve still further I increase the flow. By moving it to an intermediate point the drops are cut down somewhat, and theoreti- cally Tecan get any drip feed required, subject, however, to the prac- tical points that I have mentioned, I would also eall attention to the fact that this drip feed is entirely within the gaseous atmosphere of the carbid container and is subject to the usual difficulty, which is a very serious one, in all of these lamps of the deposit of lime from gas, and that is the purpose of this fine wire which ean be poked through, in other words, to dislodge those lime particles from the outlet, the lime particles being deposited from the gas. As to the carbid container T merely call attention to the fact that it is of the usual form in this type of lamps, having a foraminous screen at the center into which the water may drip. Q. 87. In the operation of that lamp will the end of the tube through which the water is being delivered be imbedded in the carbid ? A. Tt will not. Q. 88. In that lamp is the water flow restricted and controlled by that needle which extends through there? A. No, it is not. Q. 89. Referring to the Schmitt-British patent, will you H0 please state whether or not vou find in the disclosure of this patent a combination set forth in the 4th Claim of the Bald- win patent here in suit, the element co-operating as recited in that Claim? A. No. Q. 90. Will vou please state vour reason for vour last answer? \. The Schmitt patent particularly describes that it oper- ates by a regulating valve, this being mentioned in the first and second lines of the Claim on page 2 where it says: “Is provided with a valve for regulating the supply of water to the carbid.” It is furthermore to he noted that the outlet of the water tube is well above the carbid in the container, in fact, practically on a level with the top of the container. As to Mr. Cox’s point the container might he extended in effect by the gas space above, T would merely note that the outlet for the gas is only slightly elevated, so that any ex- pansion of the carbid in this direction would clog up the gas pipe fo the burner end furthermore T will call attention to the fact that the upper part of the container is reduced to substantially half the diameter of the lower part, assuming that the upper part can be said to he any part of the container, and therefore has only a quarter of the available contents, so that the amount of space afforded by any upward expansion is practically negligible. Tt therefore cannot be assumed that the carbid reaches the mouth of the outlet either at the fart of the operation or at any part of the operation. 1 further call attention to the fact that in this Sc [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386003_0443%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.