Transcript of Record — Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co
Supreme Court brief1944
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
_ TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD ©
* —-. (Pages 551 to 1022a)
ee —
ae
an nr i
- Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1943 _
No. .392 |
UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY, |
. PETITIONER, oh ee
Us.
‘GLOBE OIL & REFINING COMPANY
‘ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
" PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 1943.
CERTIORARI GRANTED NOVEMBER 15. 1943.
.
VOL. Il pp. 551 to 1022.
"TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD ~
IN THE
- Supreme Court of the United States
Ocroper Term, A. D. 1942:
r NIV ERSAL “Ol PRODUCTS ( ‘OMP ANY,
ne | ; Petition: r,
Us.
Ps
GL OBE OIL & RE FINING. COMPANY,
Responde nt.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. :
———EE————
THE GUNTHORP. WARREN PRR T ING COMPANY, 210 WER ceCRRUw, Om c40c
>
IN THE
ae Supreme Court of the United States
_ OctosER — A. D. 1942.
UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Petitioner,
V8. :
po
GLOBE OIL & REFINING COMPANY,
= arr Respondent.
, ; ,
ON WRIT oF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES ‘CIRCUIT COURT oF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUTT..
I
*<
. a .-
* **
.
- INDEX.
‘
o
:
Index to proceedings in U. S. District Court snoynned i
Clerk's Certificate to Volume-1 of printed record of |
' proceedings in U. S. District Conrt......--------- 550a
Clerk’s Certificate to Volume 2 of printed record of
proceedings in U. 8. District Court........----.- _.1022a
Clark's Cortifiente to Volusbe 3.0f prisited rected of
proceedings in U. S. District Court..........--+++- 1504
Clerk's Certificate to Volume 4-6f printed record of
proceedings in J. S. District Court....... o-ss ve. 8906
Clerk’s Certificate to Volume 5 of printed record of
proceedings in U. 8. District Court:...-...-------- 2494
Clerk's Certifiente to Volume 6 of printed record of
proceedings in U. 8. District Court eames us allied 30848
Clerk's Certificate to Volume 7 of printed record of
procedings in U. §. District Court........-----+++; 3569
Placita ...:...feee eee ee ees n ees teecbencteeeeees .3571
oer deectiat, ted Jan. 14, 1942... . .B572
' Appearance f Appellee, filed Jan. 19, ey 3573
Order taking | cause under advinesnent, entered
- May. 3, 1943 2.0.55. ceeeeeeereeeeetseeeeeees 3574
Opinion by Evans, J., filed June 30, 1943 peowsoul 3575
Judgment affirming, entered June 30, 1943 heohecea 3585
Reference to issuance of Mandate. ..,...>..--- - -3585
Clerk’s Certificate .....-.. peseenccocesceosseons 3587
VOL. HI pp. 551 to 1022.
_ TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD —
- Sines as out of Anneals |
- the Seventh _
No. 7912
UNITY ERSAL OIL. PRODUC TS COMPANY,
Plaintif- Appellant, °
vs. °
' GLOBE OL & REFINING COMPANY,
| Defendant- Appellee.
g 5.0. C. A.-T.. ]
FIgD ws CS
| Sub 8114942 — |
sl ; va i
t NETH. CARRIOK = [-
|. \ * CLERK os e
[
Appeal fr ‘om the District Court of the United States for the
Northern District of Illinois; Eastern Division.
THE GUNTHORS. WARREN PRINTING COMPANY, 230 WEST JACKSON, CHICAGO ;
“DOCKETED JAN. 14, 1942.
TRANSCRIPT FILED APRIL 2, 1942.
Write States iret ne of PAnpeals
“Ror the Seventh Circuit.
No. 7912
_ UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
GLOBE OIL & REFINING COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the
- Northern District of Hlinois, Eastern Division.
ee
INDEX.
Certificate of counsel as to abstract of record. Kinebaks |
Docket Entries | AEE PE ON ALES isanetekuas
Bill of Complaint, filed July 22, 1931......... agjaeainx 15
Statement of stipulation re Winkler-Kock. — sie 23
Aman, Mel Mas. 9, TO. oo ini oaks 80 oe ic ie. 23
Statement of stipulation re substitution of parties -
ig Ce: cadkheuieaacss nds cenunak. Bee ee ee 37
Amendment to Answer, filed May 11, 1932 Penne Sakae 38
; Agreed statement as to exhibits. aks ve POR EOE 39
EXCERPTS FROM EVIDENCE ON
‘RES ADJUDICATA ISSUE.
: Prawerirr’s Witnesses.
Testimony of : a eee
3 Dunham, Robert J., Sr Masaka Vrrerer npeenwaxkes , 39
Hamilton, David Phillip......:........... baccas a:
Heil, Henry F............6. Dien s Seton wes sane 42
Meh, Pred Oise vic ccciccssceisess iv dpeauneunas 43°
_ --Lamprecht, William Henry, eccect penn’ verre Te 41
Stipulation re expenditures, etc.. Sata: Ware Maa waa . 44
| ‘Derenvant ’s Wirnras.
' Testimony of: oe
O’Shaughnessy, I. A. ae TEE PETC eT Ce uae aoa 52
—
Motion to dismiss sii and amendments on ‘the
- ground of unclean hands, | filed Jan. .). agoee 7.
Vol. %, pp. m 1808 to 1803; Vol. Wi pp. 851 to 1082; Vol. pp. 1083 to 1503;
Vol. Viiy'pp. sues te seer Pp. 1995 to 3 Vol. BP..2496 to 3084;
ABSTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS ON MOTION TO
DISMISS_ COMPLAINT FOR UNCLEAN HANDS.
Statement by Mr. Von Holst. Tere ere ixekunean 58
Affidavit of J. Bernhard * Thiess (Read in). wrees ve
. Colloquy ...... beeen nba t eee ee te gereeeeeees need be 62
Amendment to Answer, filed Jan. 5, 1938......:....:. 66
‘ Petition for i Duees cue to Behimer, -
Samh. G, WEBB. 6 Loi o wc aghc ts camsinsassaanvenezcguc |
~ Petition for Subpoena | Duees Tecum to Plaintiff, filed
WD, Thy TEs oa gas 50 h0b5s Ves danhsineeendangs cen 74 .
Stipulation re hearings on Subpoenas. Pr eaae Stans tae 77
Interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff, filed Jan. 14,
ee ey Ra nee 78
Stipulation re hearing on Tateeciaishontes ereperta: i
-Plaintiff’s Answers to Interrogatories............... 80.
- Amendment to Answer, filed Feb. 9, 1938...:....... .» @&§8
Motion of Defendant. to a ~~ vane June 2,
1938 Cbocccesevadddusees cb ebdededstedsedencoasees 81.
28, 1938 . oe Pereveriey seeeeee Te ©
_ STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE ON ISSUE OF
| UNCLEAN HANDS.
Cnet 5 iiiesiscans Fecscccerececene ik Geeaaa . 283, 367
Derenpant’s WITNESSES.
Testimony of: payer
Behimer, Otto ..... Pree Pry e weer Vy oe ee 290 .
Beyt, Maurice S...... Bere eee tn re 347
Brunow, G. H.......... 4h 6a can ens ean
I NS cca tes ctes olen ayeueel 100
Dearborn, Richard J. (Deposition a ahead a ae 182
Vol. I, pp. 1 to 580; Vol. I, pp. 651. 6° 1088; Wol., 1 Epp. 1003 to 1503;
Vol. IV. ve 1506 to 1983; S ooee 1995 to vem Voi, 2495 to
.7e. A. 3 » Pp. PP.
= Wok WEE,
ee ee
ot |
iii
Egeler, i Nhe a aN inet wun es 168
ea ha kk cea Spache bah abd ¥Sd0 ess 105
Murray, R. L....:... POST PEPE OTT Eee OPES PIE 176
Ringolsky, I. J....... EPR Ee FT OO 85
Stratford, William. Malcolm (Deposition of)... é. 243
Thompson, Lloyd H................seeeeeeeeees 170
Wannack, RE Ae et eee wee 249
Id oils dank a cidawacdisieeeassncie ee .
White, G. D..:....... OE POE Pe REC he RT RY « 135
Piaintirr’s WITNESSES.
Testimony of : ; 2 ee
Behbreus, W. Meredith. EES I ORIN ve dancese wee
Dubbs, Carbon P............. akiaes ais davekixins 391.
Dunham, Robert J., Sr ere ‘neneans re a... 440
Halle, Hiram J...... es a akan. anaes X aca Se
Hoffman, Dr. Harry R.......:....... ceeieaki :. 456
Norbary, Dr. Frank Garm. ..<...ccccccccscccess 451
Documentary Evidence ................. Giitaauhessseee
Opinion on Unclean Hands, dated July 27, 1938....... 460 -
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law..:......... 463
Order overruling motion to dismiss on ground of un-
. . Clean hands, entered Aug; 2, 1938.....:..........4. 469 ,
‘ Amendment to Answer, filed Jan. 4; 1940...... nade 470
Certificate of Counsel to Abstract of f Testimony. on. -
Merits eo ececesces we eeeeeees ec ec veces cccceccs «os, 470
: “ABSTRACT OF —— Y ON MERITS.
Stipulation as to-certain facts.............ccceceeee . 471
Plaintiff’s Exhibit A—Flow Sheet of Defendant” -
process for ‘cracking petroleum............... 475
_ Plaintiff’s Exhibit B—Analysis Sheet........... 477
| ” Plaintiff ’s Exhibit C—Analysis Sheet.....-..:... 478
Re “Stipulation as to certain documents................. 480
at
rte
Vol. I, pp. 1 to 860; Vol. “SB1-to- 2008; VoL pp. 1023 to 1563;
Vel. ZY. Pp. 1808 to 1998; Vol. Petes ts sess) Wot vi DP. 2495 to 3064;
: Vol. VIZ, pp. 3085 to
iv ji
) Piarntirr’s WITNEssEs.
‘Testimony of:
Brown, Dr. George Granger....:...... ened 634, 1363
Ce ae
Hanna, Richard Ww ( Deposition of). dc db céGeadeSs 553
Healy, Francis J AAstssébhneath sat banded thebien 1500
AR: « RE A acbinis Pere F? boseeaaene 599
Lenske, Bernard @..........-++++. bonedocacgbend 598 .
Mechling, Dean G.............. rrr errs ep orrerr: “1349
Moore, Louis C. (Deposition of)................ 485
Perdew, W. E. (Deposition of)............0..... 629
Pyzel, Daniel (Deposition of)...:............... 505
Reid, William E. (Deposition of).......... eseava 504
Tabor, George H....:..........4.+. ees 1347
_ Derenpant’s Witnesses. “"
Testimony of :
Backus, Lon E. (Deposition of Riddvavachswdseuee 830
Bailey, A. S............ Oseceee pedceccccgvessen 1012
I Ro cio eusdseake iy gn hike pines ... 868
ile, TR BE Wh vescnscianedess cae vineecentaee
Detwiler, James G....,..... ihtieec¢aeenuamaiee 1004
De Florenz, Luis (Deposition of Riatninsséhensaten 846
. Donaldson, William T............. POPere pee on oan
/ ') 3 PRE eS. eres rnnnesee
a NE iso. o.os 5000045 sd secacedenecsccen 1051
PUGUNO, ME Wea cesnccscccecccshscccsaabeahe WM
- Hooker, Forney G.......... ions eases ab ieeeeee
Mackenzie, Kenneth G.......... jevukateneaes .. .1023
~ McCarthy, John 8................. Sébaseser +. -1054
_ Relman, Dr. Clarence K....i.icc. cc cccccccccs ...1174
Schneider, Ben R.....7........ awa 1049
- Geel, Beereee Bon ccc csccccss batbeves eTSeeee .. 982.
ls MIN Wek os iS eek citccbcccvcdevextuee 1056
Agreed Statement as to Introduction of Exhibits..... 1505
vol FY, 9p toes ay he ee bo ted a ae, ve Vet. Vi, pp. 9008 to suet:
-PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS.
Repaid Sainccdin ‘Me Bechet
eae (3 letters) between
*. Dearborn and Behimer..... atekaws 1 230°
. B—Thiess Agreement, Nov. 10, 1935, | —y
+; Re Witnesses: ...........6.ssi05:.. 1 232 4 1505
1—Copy of tentative settlement agree- . .
ment—U. O. P. and Danciger....... 1 385
| 2—Letter, March 2, 1938, Wannack to
NE cha dudegannttgepeasis coiiee 1 262
4—Letter, March -29, 1938, Dubbs to .
: MEE, Scieniddxiopnsbsstens tres i “33
5—Letter, Dec. 20, 1932, Behimer to
tn Micki cnconascaéugerdsdssaeeke 1 . 281
6—Letter, Jan.- ce 1927, Seullin to
Willner... o2sccccscs: a eR 1 333
7—Letter, June 20, 1917, SO a ee
Manley (see DX 759).............. 1 325
8—Letter, Aug. 10, 1917, Behimer to — .
, MapMey 20.002. cccccseccctececcveces I. 326
‘ ; 2 943
\9-_Letter, Aug. 13, 1917, " Behimer to
Manley Rand nesbeneseanxcdessese sear 1 326
2 944
10—Letter, pom 10, 1917, Behimer tol 326 .
, 2a ry sent 2 906
tt-Oiey of Behren’s memorandum on
Keystone Driller case. and Ringol-
‘sky’s memo to Behrens.......... 4. 1 389.
eos vel wh ed See 0a 2
Vol. 3085 to
_ Wannack to Dubbs ................ 4
13—Letter, Sept. -16,. 1931, Wannack to
‘Walter (Hermsdorf) . teeta geese 1
-. 80—License ioe 3 Feb. 21, 1990,
‘between Winkler-Koch Engineering
Co. .and Globe’ Oil and pratt: Co.
x “aren Er iy SE Eb 5 Sipe 1
83\Letter, May 1927, ‘Perdew to Halle 1
116—Letter, Feb. 26, 1929, Jehle to
O’Shaughnessy .......:......2-04. 1
| 120—Letter, Jan. 22, 1932, W. P. Z.
German to refiners in Winkler-Koch
Patent Co. Defense Fund .......... 1
500—Dubbs Patent 1,392,629.......... 2
501—Certified copy of File Wrapper of
Dubbs patent 1,392,629 (does not in-
_ elude reference patents, See DX 813) 2.
502—Egloff Patent 1,537,593 ......... 2
503—Certified Copy of File Wrapper
of Egloff patent. 1,537,593 (does not
include reference patents, See DX
I iasicacidcsceseacearhrscssn<e
504—Diagram of Burton sheel still... 1.
606A —Diagram of Burton-Clark tube
ST ec pee ehaG bess obk enone ndiek 1
506—Diagram of Fig. 2 of Trumble
Patent 1,281,884 .. . ene ey Pee oe tee
507—Diagram of Fig..1 of Halloran
Patent 1,765,976 ....... se eeceseeees
a8
_
— pe
B 5)
—_
)
bee
3
—)
=
506—Stipulated flow diagram of De-
fendant ’g. 2 paren at ‘Lemont, ‘Tili-
UE fivndWiicvnd iain ces nas nehenne aces 2° 670 4 1705.
: 509—Perspective drawing in color. of 7
_ Dubbs patent 1,392,629 ........ see. 2 652
' §10—Drawing of Egloff patent1,537,593 2 666
511—Model. of. Dubbs patent 1,392,629. 2 652
513—Diagram of Holmes-Manley instal-
lation, p. 337 of ‘‘Handbook for
Petroleum, Asphalt and Natural Gas,
Bulletin No. 25, Revised 1928’’ pub-.
lished by manana City Testing Lab- ra bere
OFACDTY 6... cceseccccecccces Perrer 1- 490 4 1711
514—Burton Patent 1,049,667.....:... 7 3150
§15—Trade Standards in the Pump In- |
dustry—fiyleaf and p. SRA 1 504 4 1713.
516—Worthington Pump & Machinery ee
Co. catalog—fiyleaf and pp. 14, 15, 16
17, 28, 29,-44 and 45................ 1 504
517—Distillation samples of petroleum 2 645
518—Cracking samples of petroleum... 2 652
° 519—Perspective flow diagram of Dubbs 1 507 |
. wnit #2 at Independence, Kansas... 2 688 4: 1727
-§20—Letter, Oct. 6, 1919, Pyzel to- Van ee .
_ der Gracht, unsigned ......... aceoe 510° 4 1729
|
>
“php
a
SS
4 -1717
521A—Agreement between, U. O. P. and oe oe
Roxana, dated Dec. 12, 1919........ “4- 1734 ©
521B—-Agreement between U. 0. P. and a acal y
Roxana, dated Dec. 22, 1919...... ee 4 1737
Vol 1 to 550; Vol. Pp. 581 to 1082; Vol. Pp. 1023 to 1503;
Vol. IV, Sees to seer. Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 3 Vol. PP. 2495 to 3084;
521C—Abstract of agreement between |
U..0. P. and DeBataafsche Pet. Co.,
ee ebsieen yeeees ruse At OS
at Roxana bbs suctEbsedseneds deceu< 1 §13
523—Flow sheet of Roxana-Dubbs unit Ve
GG sé dias sc hasan diidinbes 513
524—Flow chart of Dubbs unit #2. 514
. ‘ 692
532—Halloran and Strout Patent
LPOUE ‘cobscectdcsectete divdatar
533—Excerpt from ‘letter, Hanna to
' Mason and Halloran, Oct. 4, 1923.... 2
534—Abstract of letter, Hamilton | to
Hanna, Sept. 8, 1923 sities dooedecee 2
- §36—Colored flow diagram of Rich-
mond still referred to in PX 535.... 2 .
537—Dubbs Patent 1,488,325 ... ... ory
538—Letter, Adams to Hanna, July 8,
BEDE ccc cdbesceprdcetecdeesdodipect 2
539—Excerpt from letter, Ly6n to
Adams, June 12, 1924 ............. 2
540—Abstract of license agreement,
Aug. 15, 1924, between U. 0. P. and
Standard Oil Co. (Calif.) ....... wes W
541—Abstract ‘of agreement between = —S_—-
U. O. P. and Standard Oil of Califor-
nia, re Test and Escrow............ 2 557
-
“1759
1761
3416
1763
TR
~“
543—Abstract of agreement, re Sale
of Inventions of Standard to U. O. P. 2
544—Abstract of letter, Halle to Stand-
ard Oil, Aug. 15, 1924, re Scope of
i
545—Abstract of letter, Halle to Stand-
pon oo ap daemon Sa
tain charging stock from royalty. .
- ° §46—Abstract of letter, Halle, U. 0. _
©
ee
558
958
5 ee. 6g athacvera ge bah 558
\ to Standard—March 1, 1926 ........ 2 568
559
to Standard—Jan. 29, 1929 ........ 2
550—Flow > gly of Dubbs flashing
—Photographs of Dubbs ogre .
aa 1, Standard of California . 559 4 1767
552—Excerpts from Certified copy a:
File Wrapper of Halloran & Strout
application, Serial No. 176,990 (now
Patent 2,070,124) ...........60000. 2 560 4 1771
566—Notice of Suit filed Jan. 26, 1926,
eee omerars = secesessgecoes 4 1789
>
-
_567—Notice of commencement of action,
of Jan. 28, 1926, U. O. P. v. Standard
| 5} eee atvodeds
568—Notice of suit filed April 11, 1930, -
U. O, P. v. Standard of N. J.....6...
569-<Abstract of license Agreement be-
tween U. O. P. and Mid- Continent,
Qbank Bam 1, BODE nos chcisecicccccs
570—Abstract of agreement, dated: Jan.
- 4, 1936,. between U. 0. P. and Mid-
Continent, giving right to cancel ..
571—Abstract of letter of cancellation,
Mid- Continent to Universal, ane: 31,
, 1938 ....... erriireyr re i ais
2 595
2 595
2 596.
572—Abstract of statement of Royalties _
from 1922 to 1930 from Shell and .
NE es ce eee tee Pea
573—Abstract of statement of as
ties from other than Shell and: Stand-
Se Sabi acee cs cade cake aes ca
574—Abstract of statement of monies
paid to Shell and Standard by way of
rebate ox purchase of patents ......
575—Abstract of stipulation in U. 0. P.
_v. Roct, re Licensees of U. O. P.....
576—Journal entry of payment for paid -
up royalty by Shell and Standard of
577—Simplifi flow sheet of Roitens
No. “1 at Du s Still ..... iskaxks wha
2 598
2 598
2 600 4 1793
cee eet oc: pp. 881 to 1082; Wol. PD. 1083 to 1503;
Vol. IV, pp. 18606 to 1993 Dp. 1995 to 9483;
Vol. VIZ, pp. 9085 to 38¢7.
Vol, PP. 2495 to 2064;
ee : | | Vol. Page Vol. Page
_ 579A—Drawing 621 F of Dubbs unit ‘i
No. 1 at Roxana ....... Pere errr e 2 604 4 1795
579B—Drawing 690 F of Dubbs unit - |
No. 1 at Roxana .......... geeesens .2 604 4 1797
579C—Drawing 691 F of. Dubbs unit - ae
| No. 1 at Roxana ........2..+8-+%. 2 . 604-, 4 1799
4 ‘§80—Drawing 756 F of Dubbs No. 2 at ° ‘
FRROKADR © oo ioc cee ccc as cece ccccses 2 606 4 .1801 °
580A—Drawing 862- F of Dubbs No 2°
MN bk c caccs ek dincachyhes -. 2. 606 4 1803
* 580B—Drawing 755 I of Dubbs No. 2 |
‘at Roxana .........20.siseeeee eee 2 606 4 1805
580C—Drawing 933 G of Dubbs No. 2 ;
o ) Wererrerrerrreeerertreee os 606 4 1807
’ §80D—Drawing 867 F of Dubbs.No. 2 |
at Roxana ............-. Peery ey ~~ 32 606 -4 1809.
580E—Drawing 866 F of Dubbs No. 2 '
at Roxana .............0eeeeee eee .2 606 4. 1811
580F—Drawing 863 F of Dubbs No. 2
at. Roxana ....... Cee aaeunesen sé ‘2 606 4 1813
581—Model of Standard 500 bbl. Dubbs |
PES SRE T eee eT eT eT eT 2 608
| 7c | - 693
§82—Tabulation of ‘standard Dubbs
-units constructed, showing gravity |
féed units: separately \from forced
feed units ............ 547. ene 2 613 4 1814
583—Summary of Run 90, Unit #2,
Roxana, Arkansas City. ........... «614
: 2 688 4° 1816
VoL %, pp. 1 to 850; Vol. IZ, pp. B51 to 1002; Vol. 1%, pp. 1023 to 1503;
i Vol. ¥, Pp. 1995 to 2493; Vol. Vi, pp. 2495 to 3084;
“$04—Summary of Run #4B of Plant 614 i
(pt at Arkansas City aahias apeaneu 2 = «689 4 1817
585—Summary .of two Runs on Units :
#1 and #2 at Waite-Phillips Co... . 2 615 4 1818 .
- §86—Schedule of number of licensees of
‘U. O..P. and their thruput from — |
Se occa cst anak «2 2 615 4 1818
587—Dubbs Licensees, number of units |
of each, and cost thereof for stills
“built and. under construction as of sah
‘Dee. 31, 1929 .......; Sane ndegecesa: 2 615 4 1820
597—Twenty run sheets for No 2.
. Dubbs unit of Independence opera-
tion made for Western Refiners Com- a }
* "OI Sins inn chicalncannsnencascs (2. 687 .4 1823
598—Flow diagram of Defendant’s op-
eration, with additional operating
conditions in red, taken from the Root
» MMII: « on vass sacar eiaknnn biackad 2 695 4 1863
636---Letter, May 5, 1917,. Mackenzie to :
Holmes, re Cost of Hall installation 2 1046 .
_ 637—Bayonne Hall operation, account- ‘
' ants’ tabulation of products. Nov. 2 976
22, 1916 to June 1, 1917 ........ ys 3 1046 4 1865.
638—Patents filed by Texas Co. in )
1917-18: ‘e
Manley 1,428,338 ...:......... ae 7 3382
Manley 1,428,339 ...........6.00. 7. "3388
Manley 1,462,143 ................ ) 7 3410
Manley 1,640,202 .......... ees 7 3456
Sea hee SE
ai Report, 1 Backus to ccs on -
Dubbs .run, lasting 126) hours, at
Ashland Refining Co. ......."..... 2° 842
742—Report, us’ to Universal on
. Dubbs run, lasting 151 hours, at Aab- ‘
land Refining \Co. ose easccceces woe. 2 842
743—Letter, February 29, 1925, Backus
EE CB oon hc Ske cGe as dbus 2 842
829—Certified copy of disclaimer and.
decision papers in. Interference No.
SE AUAen RASA Ne Taed i406 SARs ys oe |
830—Holmes; Manley and Behimer pat-
Ee et eee Eee
. Behimer ty patent. 16,877 .
836—Drawing of Hall patent. 1,175, 910
. (Brown’s interpretation) .........: ~3 1383°
837—Drawing of Pielsticker patent
477,153 (Brown’s interpretation) .. 3 1390
< 838—Simplified drawing of Greenstreet
patent 1,740,691 (Brown’ . interpreta-
REE end tA, SS ne a 3 1400
839—Drawing of Alexander . ae
1,407, 619 (Brown’s. interpretation) . 1404
840—Fnlarged drawing of Fig. 1 ae
son & Boyd patent, 1,345, 740 ( See DX
I hes ii a ise 3 1409
843—Drawing of Fig. 1 and Fig 2 of
- apparatus of- Dubbs | application
MEE KES ANAGAe ee siesecneverscins & OD
41867
7 3428
‘7 3098 .
‘4 1873
4 1875
4 1877
4 1879
4 1881
1 to 550; II, pp. 551 to 1022; Vol. III, pp. 1023 to 1503;
Vol.
Vol. TUr pen bes te 1teee © Vol. 'V, pp. 1995 to 2463; Vol. WI, pp. 2495 to 3084;
3
Vii, pp. 9085 to 3867. -
xiv
fin in Book of
844—Simplified drawing of five still
apparatus in Dubbs application .
144,979 (Brown’ s interp a and Pare
calculations for gas Oil) .:.........: . 3 1417 4 1883
it 845—Simplified drawing of Dubbs ap-
plication 144,979 using two still ap- eet dies
paratus (isewe’s interpretation) .. 3 1429 4 1885
. 846—Simplified drawing (same as PX ae
844) ‘(Brown’s interpretation and
caleualtions for ¢rude oil) .......... 3 1431 4 1887
847—Brown’s chart on vaporization of
23.5° A. P. I. gas oil ...... ag Sus 3 1496. 4° 1889.
848—Certified copy of File Wrapper of
‘Dubbs application 144, 979, filed Jan.
Oe co oa es 3.1466 4 1891. —
. $51—Brown’s calculations of Dubbs op-
erations for apparatus in Dubbs > ; P
plication No. 144 979 eadeveseccnves eee ae
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBITS.
a (Abstract) List of ‘patent in- °
163 a-m fringement suits by Uni-.
164 > versal against usefs of
- 13ak | Winkler-Koch stills, who ane
1748-4 ) contributed to defense fund 5 1995
-175—Excerpts from Texas Company re
employee efficiency — for Be-
I ae SEE eee 1 183 5 1997
176—Excerpts, from certified copy of
File Wrapper of Behimer Appl.
263,562, Patent 2,027,014 .......... 1 183 5 2001.
Vol. I, pp. 1 to 850; Vol. tI, pp. 551 to 1028; Vol. ee
Vel. Iv, 1898 to 1993; 23; Vol. V, 5 one eee Voi,
vel. De. to 3567 DP. : PP. 2495 to ——
-
Described or
, “Testimony Exhibits
Vol. Page Vel. Page
177—Excerpts from certified ‘copy .of
File Wrapper of; Behimer patent . a
1,883,850 Ane GRE sa vncaseca 1 184 5 2008
178—Excerpts from certified copy of
File Wrapper of Interference No.
49,355 entitled ‘‘Dubbs’ v. Holmes,
Manley and Behimer’’ ............ 1 184 5 2052
179—Excerpts from certified copy of
File Wrapper of Interference ‘No. _ }
GND iin Win ce iets eec iene 1 184 5 2118
-180—Behimer’s letter of Resignation , |
to Texas Co., Aug. 24,1927 ...... 1 185
_ 181—Letter, Holmes to Behimer, Aug. |
We a accuses: peekisucoe eats 1. 186
182—Letter Behimer to Holmes, Sept.
OO, 1987 amd: heck ........0.ic0500- 1 188
183—Letter,, Dearborn to Behimer,
Oct. 3, 1927 .......2..--6. sin hade bs 1 188.
184—Letter, Dearborn to Behimer, Oct.
Be EE cuig hn 6.0 Madu CEA Eee taeee 1 190
-184A—Copy of - Behimer’s s Contract
with Texas Co., dated“December 15, -
SESE PAST dex Dorner ry > Mm. ::
. 185—Letter, C. M* Thomas to Dear: ~ . :
born, Oct. 22, 1927 .....:.......0.. 1 192
.186—Letter, Dearborn to es Oct. eal
WR OO ones cn prninsee <escaas 1 193
187—Letter Behimer to Dearborn, Noy. |
6 eee ee 1 194 -
ares 108 vo 10831 For v. pp. $95 to 2493; WoL, Thy. 2495 to 3088;
me Si tis ‘ :
Described or Tene
ms . Vel. Page Veli.
186-—Letter, paseags to Dearborn, Nov.
i “Hi, 1927- inceenes sigue 1% -— 2B
st eg i, Bite ass to ‘Thomas,
12, 1927-.... wet chewtueeseewany meres LD 1M.
190—Letter, Thomas to Deaibiii, Nov: <i
16, OE casein ter eanes Gee
19i—Letter, Dearborn to Behimer, Nov.
25, 1927 ....... siutaekesdeuassiees 1 197
192—Letter, Dearborn to Behimer, Dec —
14, eee: .198
. 193—Letter, Dearborn to Thomas, Dec.
Me 5a hci es 1-9
So Mace to Thomas, Dee. 22,
1927 wees ee cece cee cence eet ereees 1. 199 .
194A—Dea rborn Affidavit ‘attached _. ae
DX 194 PeerereerirrrrrT eri rerire ‘1 200
195—Letter, Thomas to Mace, Dec., 27, =
IRE eu Hea ee Rage Ary apes ON I 202
196—Letter, Behimer to Dearborn, ot.
pe Ae Boe rer reer rer <1. @
197—Proposed Amended Preliminary
Statement of Otto Behimer, .attached
. er rrr Eres 1 206
202—Letter of Sept. 7, 1926, Beyt to i
~ Wannack. Check attached to letter... 1 218 5 2163
203—G. D. White affidavit dated Ane.
31, 1926, with letter and envelope at:
i | Hee eee a 1 219 5 - 2165
304—Affidavits of thctibneer. Behimer,
White and Beyt ...... TEC rr Treo ee 1 220
Se ee ee ee
: poduead ta” te besiead
i Vel. Page . Vel. Page
| 204A —Longhand letter, ia 11, 1926
' to ‘‘My dear Friend,’’ unsigned ..:. 1 | 221
204B—Typwritten letter, Apr. 22, 1926
to ‘‘My dear Friend,’ unsigned .... 1 221
205—Excerpts from Texas Co. file on
Behimer patent 1,883,850, consisting -
of copy of Behimer’s assignment; let-
- ter Nov. .25, 1932 Mace to Cooper;
letter, Dec. 1, 1932 Dearborn to Hal-
le; letter, Dec. 22, 1932 Behrens to. -
Dearborn PETE Pree Teo Cee 1 232
206—Excerpts from Certified copy of
Dubbs application. Serial No. 266,396,
of which the Dubbs application 6060
was a division and was involved in .
the Interference No.-55,610 ........ "1 (229 2168
>) |
' 208—Excerpts from File No. 2, Inter-
Company correspondence of. the «
Texas Company, re Behimer ....... _ #& oe
209-—Letter, Dec. 5, 1927, Stratford to .
Ge Se See eee *§ 2236
210 for ident.—Letter, how. 1, 1927, )
Stratford to Dearborn PEPE See 1 -.244 . 5 - 2239.
211—Letter, Sept. 10, 1926, Stratford |
I icc ciavacuekaxscsee “1 246
212—Affidavit. of G. H. Von. wehitttite
dated Mar. 11, 1926 . ewe ey 5 2241
- 213—Letter, sent. from Clark Hotel
| Los Angeles, to “Dear Harry,”’ u
signed, Oct. 23, 1926 .....:..:.-... 1 256 5 2246 ©
VoL Z, pp..1 to 880; Wol. x2, pp. 651° to 1088; ‘1083 to 1803;
Vol. IV, pp. 1508 to 1993: Vol. V, pp. 1606 to sees: Vol. TE, 9. 2495 to 2004;
Vo}, Vit bp. s0es to aser,
Vel.
or
od in
Page
Vel. Page
- 214—Letter, undated, sent from Rich
Hotel, Houston, to ‘‘Dear Friend
Harry,”’ unsigned ...............% ki
215—List of employees of The Texas
Company given by Wannack to
SET -s o0nscosdsonshensaduace saa
216—List of Texas Company refinery
operators oven. - Kaufman to
White 2.5.0... ccecccenscccceseceds
Beyt, unsigned. peveussueudhuseeiees ‘* |
Beyt, ee ere, a a
219—Affidavit prepared — for iiatioe
Beyt, unsigned ................. a
220—Abstract of Bill of Complaint and .
Answer, and Amendment to Answer |
in Universal Oil Products Co. ‘v.
Dickey Refg. Co. (Equity No. 822-N) 1
221—Letter, Nov. 30, 1926, Fantz to
WE dcacuctcudedeeuscuccbineerts 1
SE P56 cWagnWewiecdamnceehac: 1
WE Gos ed cW edocs duceewcues exe 1
224—Telegram, July 17, 1927, C. P.
Dubbs to Robert J. Dunham....... “e
225—Telegram, July 17, 1927, C. P.
Dubbs to Robert J. Dunham........ 1
5 2260"
Vow f, 1 to 850; Vol. IZ, pp. 561 to 1082; Vol. Zrz,
Vol. Iv, pp. 1808 to 1988; Vol. ¥. 1 BP. 1995 to 9683; Vol. VI,
Vol. VIZ, pp. 3085 to ser.
227—Office Record Copy of Telegram,
July 18, 1927, R. G. Danielson to L.
H. Thompson .........--++s+e0-00%
Dubbs to R. J. Dunham: 4 ealgah euie
229—Telesram, July 21, 1927, Reich-
mans to C. P. Dubbs..... PIP
230—Telegram, July 22, 1927, A. F.
Reichmann to C. P. Dubbs..........
231—Photostat of. contract between
Universal Oil Products Company and
Otto Behimer, dated Aug. 20, 1927..
232—Agreement between Otto Behimer
and Universal Oil - Products. Co., =
dated Nov. 16, 1927 Pe Wa mhadae
233—Letter, Nov. 16, 1927, R. J. Dun-
ham to Otto Behimer...........-.--
234—-Wannack Expense senisineiile
(51 pages) for 1925 and is éctecs: rh
e 235—Wannack Expense item dated
TE. ot cclewsccepnacesen<e
936B—Letter, July 7, 1925, Dubbs to
‘Howard dswhanelschosependecacesos
236C—Telegram, July 9, 1925, Dubbs
‘i i cnccesesew a pepreaeye
274
279
en’
237—Beyt’s Contract with Untversal
Pege
| Oil Products Co., dated Sept. 28, 1927 5 2341
= 238—Telegram, Oct. 1, 1927, Beyt to |
Wi EK. Holmes, ........ccccccecseee ae
239—A pparatus for seta Ex-
periment 8 operated Aug. 1926 (Page |
92 of Behimer’ s affidavit).......... 5 2343
240—A pparatus for Experiment 8, op-
erated May to Aug. 1917 (Page 43B 2
of Behimer Affidavit) plehsaseiese is 5 2345
3
241 -for ident—Letter, Aug: 21, 1918, |
__ + Dubbs to R. C. Holmes............. Sie fe
242-245—Abstract of Pleadings in suits =. >
“of Universal v. Texas mpany and
Universal v. Standard Oi Company
(Ind.) in-1996 and 1927....\, Ree 1 414 §& 2355
246—Telegrams (15) from “Cal”? to
M. Egeler and telegram from. C.
Smith to Dubbs, Feb. to Sept. 1926... 1 431 5 2356
247—Telegram, Aug. 3, 1925, Wannack \
to Egeler; Telegram, Nov. 17, 1925,
Wannack to Egeler; Telegram, ‘Jan. io
18, 1926, ‘‘W’’ to Egeler; Letter;—
ye
_ Aug. 3, 1926, Wannack to. Egeler; F
Note, Oct. 16, 1926, ae to ‘‘Dear " i *
EE? nw cccccccccecececcccccecooss ' . 5). 2360
248—Affidavit of C.-P. Dubbs, Dec. 2 reierk. %
RF. ...4 inshngenanniebinenswaaeis oe sr.
249--Letters and | telegrams between
Dubbs and Wannack, vues, 1925 to
WI os fics ose rd Sak es 5e: 5.2361
Vol I, pp. a® ;
Ve ne Sees ee ere Pep. 1998 to 9463; Vol. Pp. 2495 to 3084;
aS "Described or - Reproducedl
Mites | Reproduced in in Book of
Vel. Page Vol. Page
- 307—-Settlement agreement as of Apr.
1, 1939 (typewritten) between Uni- . |
_- versal and Root Petroleum Co....... 5 2376
308—Supplemental: letter, Jan. 25, |
1939, signed by Universal and Root .
- Petroleum Co. modifying Paragraph
ee cs hin chit xtiiasac.. 5 2381
311—Letter, Jan. - 26, 1939, Rost i es
Petroleum Co. to Thiess............-. —=&§ «2383
525—Pyzel patent Tt 7 .3436
526—Jesse A. Dubbs patent 1,123,502. 7 3174
527—Trumble patent 1,281,884..... eg . 7 38286
528—Pyzel patent 1,506,444.......... 7 3424
529—Pyzel patent 1,891,218..........° 7 3506
530—Pyzel patent 1,622,737.......... 7 3444
" .. §54—Hanna patent 1,449,226......... a 7 3394
555—Hanna patent 1 449,227... eer °. 7 3402
: 556—Drawings of Richmond (Hanna) | ae
Presstire Still .:..'............0020: 2 568
, 557—Dra ing of: Halloran. and Strout
Still, dated Aug. 30, 1923............ 2 570
558—Drawing of Halloran and Strout apne
‘Still, dated Jan. 22,1924.......... .. 2 570
559—Flow sheet of proposed modified
‘Richmond (Halloran and Strout)
‘-ehacking process, dated March ie
ME Suba und basasatosesoe ss oeeeese 2 578 5 2385
“ 561—Hanna patent.1,655,603........... 7. 7 3462
-
WoL %, pp. 1 to 580; Wol. £1, pp. 551 to 1042; Vol. IIZ, pp. 1023 to
Vol. IV, pp. 1505 to 1993: Vol. V, Dp. 1995 to 2493; Vol. Wi, pp. 2490 to 3084;
Vol. Vii. pp. 3085 to 3567.
xxii
(Dubbs furnace) ..... Memon é eeeeee 2 692
_ (Dubbs farnace) ........... Thiet, 2 592
June 1926 ....... sdteataliindin Chee’ 582
Bem. 21988 oc ccccevcccees A Se
588—Defendant’s request for admis- 7
’ gion of getiuineness of documents. . _ §& 2387
589-—Plaintiff’s answer to request ‘ee
: admission of genuineness of docn-
MORES ccc cece ccccercnecscccces 5
1924-25 owe eee eee e eee eeeeeees 2 63 5
GS hn tok GUN Ss ch SKN es cp 2 6%
593—Hnuff Patent 1,638,735...........
595—Huff Patent 1,937,959.......... 7
596—Huff Patent -2,039,797..........
599—Patent application A (Homes,
anley &- Behimer), delivered to
esbitt by Mackenzie to be forwarded
DE ic danecanvavascssdeanaeedens 3 1023
600—Excerpt from letter, Mackenzie to
Nesbitt, March 22, 1918... voéece eeeee 3 1023
601—Telegram, Mackenzie to Holmes,
March 23, 1918..:....... Cheek eees
2392
2393
1925-26 ...... sis caieiltaxdies vecse 2 625 5 2395
2401
3450
a a
ou
:
Cee bee ape te et
va a =
. Pege = (Vel.
602—Excerpt from Totter, Mackensio.
i?
to Holmes, Apr. 27, 1918........... 3 1027
603—Excerpt from letter, Mackenzie to
Nesbitt, May 3, 1918......:........ 3 1028
604—Letter, Nesbitt to Foster, Free- -
mah, Watson and Coit, May 4,1918.. 3 1028 5 2414
605—Letter, Coit to Nesbitt, May 6,
Rechts ackuaaindddcaeseoese 3 1028 5 2414
606—Letter, Mackenzie to Coit, May 9 =
WT nedhbctnaknbengsedidondtecser 3 1028
607—Letter, Coit to een, May
Pe ee acdccecescOcnctestomccpese 3 1028
608—Letter, Mackenzie to Holmes, May
PE Silat nsec desdheseacdec« 2 979
hai 3 1028
609—Excerpt from letter, Coit to Nes-
~ bitt, June 3,.1918................... 3 1029
610—Excerpts from letter, Nesbitt to
Coit, June 13, 1918 (Mackenzie’s
GUND sccccctucccdccccvcdcccszovcs 3 1029
611—Letter, Coit to Nesbitt, June 15, ,
Di Gcntitesnteivibpahtaneweeedenhes 3 1030 :
612—Letter, Nesbit to Holmes, July.
23, 1918, and attached copy of letter
from Coit to er dated J uly 22,
i bicnipbadabeisedesaneventens 3 1031
Bee TED ccccctcccccasqcccccesscece “3 1031
614—Excerpts from letter, Mackenzie
to Holmes, Sept. 9, 1918............ 3 1033
Vol 2 pp. 1 to 550; Vol x. pp. soy ‘1082; Vol. “pp. 1083 to 1803;
Vol. EV. yp. 1506 to. 1983: Vol. W. pp. } 995 to 9483; Vol. PP. 9495 to 2084;
Vol. VI, pp. 3085 to S547. ‘
xxiv.
‘ Fe ‘ ; ae ; - De cribed or Reproduced
; in in Book of -
Vel. Page Vel. Page
&15—Letter, Thomas _ to "“Madcenaa, :
Sept. 13, 1918, enclosing letter from ‘
Coit, dated Sept. 11, eae cute Mie
616-Letter, Mackenzie" to Thomas,’ |
Sept. 24, 1918 ..... ee cckhbiveaw kes 3 1034.
617—Letter, Mackenzie to Holmes, |
Oct. 1, ses Pere eT re . 3 1034
618—Letter, Mackenzie to Van Gundy, ;
NR Te: BOR ss 5 vans cecddgecceetines 3 - 1035
619—Letter, Tan Gundy to Mackenzie,
a. + SS weer ie eee aie’ 3 1035_
. 620—Letter, Behimer to Mackenzie, Pie
eS eee Cais beeen "2 -915 ae
aa me ues ie 3 1035
621—Letter, Mackenzie to Holmes, ag ee
Sh Se EE 0 6k ko hedss cccawncs w+» 8 10386 5 2415
-622—Letter, Mackenzie to Thomas, : | °
Nov. 18, DE ante sa wees inntes sends 3 1036
623A—Flow diagram by De Florez, of | |
operation at Bayonne (Hall Process) 2 847 5 2417
626-—Excerpt from report, Mackenzie — a
s to Holmes, Feb. 28, 1917, Runs 12 to |
a 24 of Hall Process....... Se huewenee 2 853 —
; eee Se
627—Report, Mackenzie to Holmes,
' ” April 12, 1917, Runs 25, 26, 34 and 33 4 1044 5 2419
628—Exeerpts from final report on | _
Hall Process, May 9, 1917: ore ae
6 phages from report on Hall Proc- |
; Mackenzie to Holmes, May 7, :
| 1917 eee Dyin ewes ae euce wha 3 1045 -
on
to
ee e
to
to
Vol, pp. ! . 551 to 1082; Vol. 1023 to 1503;
| wol. FW. pp. 1806 to 1983; Vol. V pp. 1995 to 2493; Wol. WE, pp. 9495 to 3004;
Described or Reproduced
in in Book of
Exhibits -
‘ Vol. Page Vol. Page
: : 630—xcerpt fr from cepaet on » Hall, Pree.
- ess; Mackenzie to ow ad 29, -
OU Seip rite ae tec bates, 3 1040
632—Excerpt f rom report, Mackenzie
to Holmes, Oct. 17,1917, Summary of .
_ Runs 101 to 109 on Hall Process.... 3 1040
634—Report, Mackenzie to Holmes,
’ Oct. 26, 1917, on Hall Process ...... 3 "a 1042 5 2436
635—Report, Mackenzie to Holmes, EMORY
Jan. 17, 1918, Summary of October, |
November and December operations
at Bayonne on Hall Process ........3 1042 5 2444:
—641—Cady drawing of apparatus to ‘or:
demoustrate vapor pressure ies +. 2 792 5 2449
642—Cady curve of vapor pressure of ay
ME ooh el ashen eeidipeucibedauses 2 793 5 2451
644—Cady photograph of column of :
<i << c ik s a tae wabe'eGee oon 2° 796 5 2453
645—Cady photograph of column after
boiling’ has stopped ............. 0.2 19 8 2453
646—Cady diagram of apparatus used . sis
to measure vapor pressure. of mixed .
MRGMEG SORMTIORS oo on ci cccceceeces 2 797 5 2455
647—Cady diagram of apparatus show-
ing the partial pressure effect in
_ fractionation of a solition ......... 2° 802 5 2457
_ 648--Excerpt from Science of Common ,
| Things, p. 194, by Wells (1863)..... 2 804 .5 2459
- 649—Excerpt from Physics for a. a Ny
Student, p. 375, by Carhart (1910).. 804 5 2459 ©
Vol I, pp. 1 to 550; Vol. IZ. pp. 551 to 1022; -Vol. XIX, pp. 1023 to 1503;
Vol. IV, pp. 1506 to 1993; Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 2493; Vol, _ Vt pp. 2495 to 3084;
Vol. WII. pp. 3065 to 3867.
«
xxvi
Described Reproduced
fin in Book of
‘Testimony Exhibits
Vel. Page Vel. Page
650—Excerpt from A “Text Book ' ut
Physics, p. 196, by Spinney (1925).. 804 5 2459
805
651—Excerpt from Physics, Advan
Course, by Barker, p. 309 (1892): .
. 652—Excerpt from Elementary lg
tise on Physics, p. 341, Atkinson’s
Translation of Ganot (1879)........ a) — 80S 2460
653—Excerpt from Essentials of Phys- |
ics for College Students, p. 115, by
5 2460
Hering (1912). ..... Bi thedeceteatne on 5 2461 -
654—Excerpt from College Physics, :
p. 240, by Reed and Guthe (1912).. y . 5 2461
_ 655—Excerpt from, The Elements of el
Physics, p. 192, by Coleman (1906). . 5 2461 .
. 656—Excerpt from The Elements of
_ Physics, p. 148, by Carhart & Chute
” GD save dcp cdnsfacgeeseseerisss
657—Excerpts from Physics for Stu-
dents of Applied Science, pp. 198 and. - |
202, by Shrader (1937) ....... Bi say . § 2462
658—Excerpt from A’ Textbook of In- Hoes
- organic Chemistry for Colleges, p
163, by Norris (1921) ............. 2 805
660—Behimer Patent 1,883,850.......
‘ 662—Drawing X-1123 of Dewar & Red-
- wood apparatus, dated Dec. 4, 1915 2 871 5 2463-
663—Drawing Y-1568—Modified Red-..
wood still, dated Sept. 19, 1916...... 2 872 5 2465
664—Behimer’s sketch of modified con- .
tinuous Dewar and Redwood still... 2 875 5 2467
Vol I, pp..1 to 850: Vol. XZ. pp. 881 to 1082: Vol. IIZ, pp. 1023 to 1£03;
Vol. IV, pp. 1506 to 1993: Vol. V. pp. 1995 to 2493; Vol. Vi, pp. SEES fo S886;
Vol. VII, pp. 3085 to 3567.
gate
ge
28
665—Clark and Abbey line diagram of
heating coil of Katee 8, dated
= 3 free 2 882 5 2469
666—Drawing Y-1562, Smith Drawing ©
of Coil, Experiment 8, dated Sept. 18, 3
BEE 2c cexbcces> bide a Swedes ans acne 2 882 5. 2473 |
667—Photostat of blue print from orig- ©
‘inal tracing 1648 showing coil and’
drum Experiment 8, with marks by .
Behimer (See DX 754) ............ 2° 883 5 2475 -
667A—Enlargement’ of box title of DX
667, showing date of Nov. 6, 1916.... 2 883 5 2477
668—Photostats (front and rear) of
blue print from tracing Y- 1703, dated:
Dec. 7, 1916 ...... ee aeaiak 6 2 88 5 2479
669—Photostat of tracing Y-1703 as re- : Pe
vised, dated Jan. 29, 1917.......... 2 885° 5 2483
670—Letter, Mar. 23, 1917, Detwiler to ,
Mambey 0.65.0: 0sccevereceeseies 2 1008"
671—Sketch #15 for jet pump No. 1 for’ | a
Experiment 6 .......2.....0068 :... 2 886-5 2485
672—Test data on jet pump, dated
ene 2 886 5 2487
€73A—Earnest drawing No. 23 (page | “t,
1) of apparatus erected in coil and
. drum Experiment 8 ............... 2 .887 5 2489
673B—Earnest drawing: No. 23 (Page :
. 2) of apparatus erected in coil and
drum Experiment 8 ............... 2 887 5, 2491
674—Group of textbook excerpts, re PAG
vaporization .......... whe Saawex os ; 5 2493
ol ta aPP adel nl Sac Ful wp ted ts sal Sus? By, Sis 8 BSE
PP- ° PP. s Vo PP. 2495 to 3084;
Vol. VIZ, pp. 3085 to 3567. :
675—Behimer’ sf ractioning equipment =
eer tt ore rere 2 892 6 2495
675A—Behimer’s vondenser ‘for frac-
tionators (Sketch #9) ......:..... 2 892 6 2497
676—Records of Run 6, Experiment 8 .
(coil and drum) ............ Tebwe'es 2 896 6 2499
| nah eee of Run 7, Experiment 8 :
_- (coil and drum) TTT Te Te ree 2 900 6 2539
678—Records of Run 8, Experimental 8 - a
(coil and drum) Sakae caankeeneen as 2 900 6 2559
679—Records of Run 9, Experimental 5 | a
(coil and drum) ...':...........5. 2 900 6 2579
680—Behimer’s distillation note book 2 902 6 2615.
681—Behimer’ 8 permanent record book
_ pages for Runs 6-9....... Vuseuntans 2 +902
| 682—Behimer’s index cards for ae on
Experiment 8 ..... aissbsceahenenas 2 902
683—Excerpt of letter, June 27, 1917,
Manley to Detwiler ............... 2 904
- 684—Excerpt of letter, Aug. 14, 1917,
Manley to Detwiler ...:........... 2 908
685—Behimer’s sketch - of proposed _
semi-commercial appartus TTC. ae
686—Drawing Y-2200 of proposed semi-
commercial “apparatus, dated ' Sept.
24, 1917 err “ukeues erento ua 3:
687—Letter, Nov. 5, 1917; Dawson to
Bailey, with enclosed letter, Nov. 1, |
1917, Collings‘to Dawson .......... 2 911 -6 2643
6 2639
6 2641
i Tbe yee bos te ibe, Vol Wi pp. 551 to 1022; Wol. pp. 1023 to 1603;
. Ved. SV, Oe 1088 So 1eee 90 Pp. 1995 to 2493; Vol, PP. 2495 to 3084;
Vol. VII, pp. 3085 to 3567,
in in Book of
Ver Fess, Va Page
668—Excerpt from letter, Behimer me Vs
Bailey, Nov: SP errr yee rer 2 911
689—Letter, Bailey to Behimer, Nov. mas
rn Meee eee 2 912 -6 2644
ma 690-—Hxcerpt from letter, Manley to.
+ (is we TR WORE civic vs cdanses 2 912
691—Letter, Bailey to Dawson, Dee. er
NE TT Tee TTT ITT Terres 2-.912:. 6 2645,
692—Letter, Risdon to Bailey, Jan. 3, ;
OO fn EN 00 as sighs dates cadbanens 2 912 6 2646 -
(693—Drawing Y-2282; incomplete
Hartzler drawing-of proposed coil \
and drum semi-commereial apparatus 2. 912 6 2649
- 694—Donaldson’s ‘working copy of _
Behimer . patent application _
draft). .... Perret rrr LiRiw dean 914
695—Tracing U-2310 for patent speci- — |
| fication, dated Jan. 4, 1918 ...... 10 2-914 6 2661.
696—Certified copy of Holmes, Manley aD
_ & Behimer application No. 263,562, | .
Pe gtr epee Cpe ree erry ame 6 2653
-697—Drawing p. 169, dated Dec. .24,
1917, showing Batteries 2 ‘and 3. of 34
Experiment _ Sr very er ee 2 915 6 2671
698—Drawing of heating coil of Bat-
tery 3, dated July'2, 1918 .......... 2 915
-699—Letter, Risdon od hasta June 18; |
\ A cece evRdG cat has back dhactd en 2 915 6. 2673
yal baa dado as seo ened Sn ea Wp
- Described or
ia in Beok of
estimony Exhibits
700—Letter, Vilter Mig. Co. to Texas
Olin AR We BO onc eeasssareecs +. 2 916
701—Excerpt fi rom letter, Behimer. to
Manley, Sept. 13, SE kas aueceusas -2 916
703—Letter, Capen to Schutte-Koert-
Bees Ws SE a Cb akeaneaekdecas 2 917 6 2675
704—Letter, Schutte-Koerting to Texas i Se
Co.,: Des. 3, I088: 6.05 cieeas’ hgetave 2 917 6 2675
705—-Excerpts from Ru shevata of Run
5, Battery 3, Experiment 18, dated — aes .
Dec. 9-14, 1918 ........... iketewen 2.917 6 2677 .
706—Excerpts from report on eile |
2, Run 14 (with preheater coil), dated | eee
Dee. 14-23, 1918 ..... nk Gaede ---- 2 919 6 2680
707—Excerpts from report: on Run 7, ai
Battery 3, Experiment 18; dated Jan.
11-13,.1919 ..... Niky S. 2 6 Oe
708—Excerpts from report on Run 8,
Battery. 3, Experiment 18, . dated :
Feb. 25-27, 108. 5. 20: (Awa eae ee Ans 2 919 6 2688
- 709—Drawing H-405—Alterations to | oA we
batteries 1‘and 2 (making a four-still
battery), dated Dec. 4, 1918........ 2 920 6 2691
710A—Letter, Miller (Hancock Inspira-
tor Co.) to Behimer, Mar. 29, 1919 2 920 6 2693
710B—Letter,-Behimer to Hancock In- :
spirator Co., April 21, 1919........ 2 921 6 2697.
710C—Letter, ‘Berthold (Hancock) to. ie anhe) Ps
_ ' Behimer, May 6, 1919 seaesecsevned 2 921 6° 2698 —
Vout pp. 3 to, 690; Vol i yp. 681 v0 1082, Vou DP. 1083 to. 1503;
Vol. IV, pp. 1505 to 1993; Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 2483; Vol. Wi, pp. 2495 to 3084;
Vol. VIZ, pp. 3085 to 3867. ee
Yaead
xxxi
in Book of
tn te
rin
Vel. Page Vel. Page
7 = ¥ from letter, Manley to
_ Behimer, May 20, 1919........ a a. oo
711—Excerpts. from Run 3, Battery 4, |
Experiment 18, April 26, 1919...... 2 921 6 2699
_712—Letter, Behimer to. Holmes, Dec. EL rn,
= I Raa tee pe eenee 2 924
713—Letter, Holmés to Bebimer, Dec. ,
ss dia ca viscncan anes 2 924
; ‘je X-3595A of preheater
and economizer of Experiment 11B,
dated April 3,.1920........... ceases 2 925
715—Drawing ‘Y-3619A—Apparatus of .
Experiment 118, dated April 38,
; ane Giawieias Koch aan ass boxe xi 6 2705 -
716—Behimer’s notations; re jets #6 7
and #7 for Experiment 11B, tested —
BORO Be, Tees en escccnes baeaueae 2 925-
717A—Letter, Behimer to Am. eens
Pump, Feb. 19, en a, 2 925
717B—Letter, Am. Steam Pump ra |
Texas Co., Feb. 25, 1920.:..:...... 2 . 925
718A—Letter, Behimer to W. E. Quim- >
by, Inc., Mar. 3, OR ;: eS
718B—Letter, W. $. Quimby, Ine., to — aoe
Texas Co., Mar. 13, Ds «iss 00 .. 2° 926
719A—Letter, dimer to Obie -In-
.: jector Co., May 20, 1920........... 2 926
719B—Letter, ‘Ohio’ Injector. Co, to.
‘Behimer, May 25, 1920...:........ 2 926
' ‘WoL Z, pp. 1 to 580; Wol: 2%, pp. 551 to 1022; Vol. pp. to 1503;
-_ Jeb Tu, vo. 1506 00 10a Vel. Wr bn 1908 te sada; Wot PD. 2495 to 3084;
Reproduced —
720—Blueprint. ‘of tracing Y-4422 of
_ centrifugal pump, dated Mar. 8, 1920 2 926
721A—Drawing of Parish rotary pump,
marked “——_ eee 2 927
721B—Drawing of plunger type pump,
marked “9D 2.56. .ccsevewecccece 2 927 -
722A—Letter; Bender to Behimer,
Sh Te Fess cece asccecsabonses 2. 927
722B—Letter, Behimer to Bender,
Si Ts ee ecttabsncane bewnuie 2 927
723—Drawing Z-4346, showing hori- .
--gontal, double acting, plunger type
pump, dated Mar. 4, 1921......:... 2 927. 6 2707
an Dow Pump Co. to Texas ad -
Co., Mar. 23, 1921....... pesheunaan 2 927 6 2709
_725—Behimer notegram to Capen, )
April 9, 1921...... sashadbatedsenes 2 928 6 2713
726—Notegram, Behimer to a : o
BE Ey, MENS Se Boe svsecdescsvscces 6 2713
727—Notegram, Behimer to Dodge, gone hs
BO B, FER. ccccces ‘seestbeadiceta 2 928 6 2717
. 728—Drawing X-4644, Surge art
‘dated May 28, 1921..............:. 2 928 6 2719
729—Flow diagram of original com-
’. mercial batteries of the Texas Co. —
started March 1920:.............:. 2 929 6 2721
730—Drawing - Y-4630 dated May 21,
1921, showing Battery 14 — Surge
, Uo cccgecicagcacseccs'sccewe ~—. ae oo,
ann
Described or
in in Book of
“Vel. — Vol. Page
, 731—Drawing Y-4871, showing modi-—
fied Surge pump eteatien, dated eon
Be We Mews vind coxcsdassteaice 2 ‘930 6 2725
| 732—F low diagram of Run 63, Battery
14, using Surge pump return of re-
flux to the coil; Oct. 31, 1921 to
ee Re ere piweeK ens 2. 931 6 2727 —
733—Tracing record of trssing Y-1703 2 987 6 2729.
_ 734 for idént.—Behimer’s statement to
the Texas Co. in 1996:..:........-. 2 952 6. 2731.
735—Excerpt from - letter, Alther to
Backus, Oct. 23, 1924.............. 2 837
186—Excorpte from letter, Bergman to.
Hoff. Mar. 19; 1925....... Vaseseeens -2
737—Excerpt from letter, Bergman to
ae EB OR eee 2
.738—Distillation report of Dubbs resi-
739—Distillation ie. of’ Dubbs
charging stock .......... frretetens 2
740—Distillation report of, Dubbs resi-
due from Unit ee Aer = SLAs 2
745 for- -ident. —Exce! from aw .
Behimer to Dodge, Mar. 21, 1924.... 2 953
746A- O—Photographis of Bayo nne ap- — a
- paratus for Hall Process..... eee 2 -850 6 2749
838
839
Mr -wiichoue pehocs shee shbe sun ede¥ee 2 840°
R40)
840
747—-Log sheets of Run 24 at Bayonne-~ ;.
(See Summary, DX 850)-~....... : 2 853
Vol I, pp. 1 to 550; Vol PP. 551 to 1083; ;
Vol. IV, pp. 1505 to 1993: Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 2483; Vol. Wi, pp. 2495 to 3064;
Vol. VIZ, pp. 3085 to 3567. Hibs .
_ Xxxiv
Vc~ YEE, pp. 3085 to
ey
Sas Vol. Page Vol. Page
750—Excerpts from De Forez article
.- (1923) in ‘‘The Refiner and Na-. .
tional Gasoline Manufacturer”’ Mag- |
WR pestccctcscteoas ok Some 22 («857 -
i. 751—Excerpts fron: De Florez article °
in. “National Petroleum News,”’ : |
, | MOREE: ais ixicee Skexes Gea baawi 2 859
752—Tracing record of Drawing Y-1648 2 986 6 2779
753—Blueprint of tracing Y-1648 (Bur-. Ss
ton stills layout), dated Jan. 29,1917 2 986
754—Smith’s recopy of. original trac- 7 *
ing 1648 }(See DX-667).....:...... 2 986 6 2781
755—Donaldson’s blueprint #11955 . fie Obs x
tracing 1703-Y (See DX 668, 669)... 2. 999 6 2783
756—Letter, Donaldson to eee |
‘Feb. 2, 1918, with attached .applica-_ |
SK necvaskcaensvans Abb ekvanweeeas ‘ee
ee lie ed eee 2 1000-.6 2785
757—Excerpt from letter, Donaldson |
to Holmes, Jan. 22, 1918 ..... Suicee 971
. , J 2 1001
758—Letter, Holmes to Manley, * May att ae
a | PR te died - | - 6 2795
759—Letter, (enclosures omitted) Det:
~ wiled to Manley, June 20, 1917 (See Seat ab
2 BBP 2 903 6 2796
760—Thompson ; Patent 1,250,050 vert 7 , 3254 .
- 761—Letter, Holmes to Manley, Jan. af
Oe ee rg sae Miebandsarue vena, 2 971.6 2800°
762—Telegram, Holmes’ to . Manley, 3 |
Ph eC eric dae Mes 2 972 6 2803
CRE TT LTT BM 8 ae
ond 774-A) —Flow diagram of Defendant’s
or Reproduced |
_———-* in Book of |
‘ estimony Exhibits
‘ Vol. Page Vol. Page
763—Letter, ‘Neate to Holmes, ‘Feb.
2, 1D1S 2.0. Koonce eres ence ees ees » 2 972
764—Letter, Holmes to Lufkin, March ae .
| | ee Ledashueec cae iaiens 2 972 .
765—Letter, Donaldson.to » Manley, Feb.
-: — seeeeeeioe, ap ere 2 1002
769—Detwiler™ memorandum, Novem: veers
ber 29, 1916, re secrecy...-.... weee 2 1006
972 —Perspective drawing of. ~Dubbs : ae? cee
773 patent 1,392,629 ......:..... 3 1072) «6 «2805
774 - operation at Lemont, IH., :
prepared by H. V. Smith....3° 1115 6 2807
775--Photograph of Defendant’ 8 plant ; ;
at Lemeént, Ty 2.0. . 0.06. ecu tia. 31115 6 2809
776—Brown’s vapor pressure chart in
.the Root case, with marks by H. V.
pic sdistsSebancesaniins ss 3 1134. 6. 2811
777—Sketch of Jenkins still, prepared eae
by H..V. Smith..... evinackewns aces 3 1139 6 2813
778—Drawing of coil: distillation. ap- ; a |
paratus, prepared by Reiman.:.... 3 1179 © 6 2815
779—Atwood Patent’ 28,448.......... | 7: 8110
780—Simplified drawing of Atwood — ee
Patent, prepared by Reiman..... .. 3 1184 6 2817
781—Merrill Reissue patent 7,096. . : 7° 3105
782—Dewar and Redwood aliuit
+ 419,937, ......... renee peek cane? ~ 7 3122
-783—Burton patent 1,105,961........° °. ° 7 3164
Ra ee ee EE
3085 to 3567.
a
Deecr toed
tm Book of
= A
- 784—Humphreys patent 1,119,700.... - 7 3170
785—Edwards patent. 1,170,884.......- 7 3182
' 786—Smith patent 1,239,423..... re 7 3224
787—Benton (Br.) patent 1,922 of 1887 . 7 _ 3527
788—Pielsticker (Br.) patent. 6,466 of
a ban wedetabucscaneee 7 3545 .
789—Pielsticker os patent 1,706 of
MEL. <ctniianavavatunanetadddesdeee 7 3539
790—Pielsticker (Br.) paterit 1,308 of . a
BEBE cccccccccs ee eee 7. 3531.
791—Simplified dra&wing of Pielsticker
patent, p red by Reiman ....... 3 1210 6 2819
792—Pielsticker patent 477,153....... 7 * 3126
793—Hall patent 1,175,910........... 7. 3200
794—Letter, Kinzer to Dawson, Sept.
i ET a lscidovnaceitnigwastees 2 1015 6 2821
795—Letter, Dawsed to Bailey, Sept. : .
By Bee cccesaca= eeeseccccasecees 2 1015 6 2821
796A—Letter, Kinzer to Dawson, Oct. 7
S| POV Se re ..2 1016 6 2822
796B—Drawing U-2212, enclosed in
7964, of high pressure still drum, 7
Experiment 12, dated Sept. 5,.1917.. 2 1016 6 2823
797—Drawing P-227, dated June 5,
1919, showing plan of a commercial
_ battery without pump and clean cir-
GUE, cscceVootdedscaesebhassies 2 1017 6 2825
798—Drawing P-230, dated Jure 2,
1919, showing longitudinal section of -
OUND GER 40.40.6020 6Vecdccseces wees 2.1017 -6 2827
wa beep tet Vol. It, pp. 551 to Vol. IE, pp. -1082 té 1569;
xxxvii
it.
® Ve Page Vel.
799__Drawing P-238 showing preheater, : .
dated June 5, 1919............. ... 2 1017. 6 2829
800—Drawing Y-4578, dated May 21,
- 1921, showing piping for float gauge
and Surge pump for back trap, Bat- ;
RP igtasicecs FEEL, Ss, pela. 2 1018 6-. 2831
. 801—Biddison & Boyd Patent 1,345,740 7 3336
802 and 802A—Excerpts from certified ="
copy of File Wrapper of Biddison
& Boyd Patent 1,345,740 and original
GUEEEGB- “co cccasccscccpocegeappes 6 2833
803—Simplified drawing of Biddison &
‘ Boyd patent prepared by Reiman... 3 1231 6 2863
804—Ellis patent 1,396,999........... 7 32352
. 805—Simplified drawing of Trumble —
‘ patent 1,281,884, prepared by Reiman 3: 1250 6 2865
_ 806—Alexander patent 1,407,619... ... ° 7. 3364
-. 907—Exeerpts from certified copy’ of . .
. Alexander patent File Wrapper... ... 6 2867
808—Alexander patent, simplified draw- ates RY Nes
ing prepared by Reiman.:.......... 3 1256 6: 2897
809—Greenstreet patent 1,740,691... .. 7 3476
810—Excerpts from certified copy of ; 7
File. Wrapper of Greenstreet omer:
1,740,691 ....... \ cuereiandebees ‘3 1283 «6. 2R99
811—Enlarged drawing of Greenstreet ee
patent with colored lines, prepared by .
PN cot dank dds ebdsensdackosecel 3 1265 6 2953
812—Simplified drawing of Greenstreet a5
patent, prepared by Reiman........ 3 1270 6 2959
| wel, EV. pp. 1808 te pied: Vol ¥. pp. 1998 CT oaes ta S008;
Vol. Viz, pp. 9085 to sser.
=
as e Vol. Page Vol. Page
-813—Prior Art Patents in File Wrap-
' per of Dubbs, 1,392,629, except those
shown as separate exhibits: ; shins
Hall patent No. 1,175,909.....2...° 7. 3194
Zerning patent No. 1,183, 266. : . aa 7 | 3208
Lambert patent No. 1,245,930 aes 7 +3238:
Ellis patent No. 1,249,278.......... 7 3248
Coast patent No. 1,250,799........ 7 3262
814—Prior Art Patents in File.Wrap- — |
per of Egloff, 1,537,593, except those
_ shown as separate exhibits:
Perkins: patent No. 399,073...:... 7 3416
‘Lang patent No. 954,575........ a 7. 3140 .
Gillons patent No. 1,084,080...... | 7 3154
Forward patent No. 1,202, Se _.7 3218
Curran patent No. 1,255,714...... 7 $268
815—Dubbs patent 1,686,654.........: - 7 3468
816. for ident. —Excerpts from certified : :
' copy of File Wrapper of Dubbs ‘pat-
ent 1,686,654 . sper Pere ee ewe ire 3: 1345 6 2961
~ 817—U. 0. P. Bulletin 8536, hill See. |
(a MR ced ineincss sack weer ces. 6 2977
818A. 0—Summaries of Run pn for
Dubbs SE is oes xs 6 2978
819--Excerpts from U. 0. P. Bulletin
(1936) entitled “Cracking, Yester- ,
~ day, Today and Tomorrow”’:....... 6 2993
820-—Excerpts from us OP. Bulletin | . .
_ SR-508, June 20, 1932.,......... 66. 6 2993
821—Excerpts from U. 0. 7. Bulletin Sea
SR- 521, June 20, 1982......,.4..... 6 2994
ees Vol. 12, pp. Pp. 551 to 1082; Vol. TIX, pp. 1033 to 1503;
' Vol. ZV, pp. 1505 to 1993; ee Se Se: See OS ee Vee We
3085 to 3567.
t
Vol. 3.4% Pp- t -- 4 to 1993; Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 2493; Vol.
Vol. 3085 to 3567.
Described or
- in in Book of
Exhibits
) Vol. Page - Vol. Page
822—Hall: patent’ 1,285,136........... 7 3302
- 823—Hall patent 1,242,796........... 3 7 3230
824—Hall patent 1,194,289../........ ° 7 3212
$25—Excerpts from ‘Principles of
Chemical Wngineering’’ by’ Walker,
Lewis and McAdams............... 6 2994
826A—Excerpts ‘from certified copy of
File Wrapper of\ Interference No.
, COE eacrest. ee pres Pee 6 2995
827 A—Excerpts - from the ‘Warner- |
- Quinlan Brief ....... uae reds sees 6 2997 —
'827B—Pielsticker drawing iis the. |
* Warner-Quinlan Brief ............. 6 3015
828—Iixcerpts from Interrogatories .
~ and Answer in-C. P. Dubbs v. Uni- pe. a
versal Oil Products Co.......:..... ~ 6 3017
831—Mechling free hand sketch of nor- | |
mal Alexander operation........... 3 1353 6 3021
832—-Mechling free hand sketch #1— -.
‘*Regular a 3 1355 6 3023
833—Mechling free hand sketch #2—
‘Return of part of condensate from
Fractionating Tower with’ Fresh:
EE saw chine ake veenkheed eats sane 3 1355 6 3025.
_ 834—Mechling free. hand sketch PS a
gE Re nes re er ee 3 1356 6 3027
- 835-—Meehling free hand sketch #4—
‘Return of part of condensate from
- Exehanger Tower with Fresh Feed’? 3 1356. 6 3029
Vol. I, pp. 1 to 550; Vol. 11, pp. 551 to 1022; Vol. pp. 1023 to 1803;
OD. 2495 to 3064;
gl
849—Summary of demonstration Runs =
_ for Dubbs units, Avon, Calif., 1924-25 6 3031 —
850—Summary of Converter Logs of |
Run 24 at Bayonne (Hall Process),. ae. ae ha
dated Jan. 22 to Feb. 5, 1917........ * 6 3033
_ Motion by Defendant for re-admitting into evidence, |
_DX-816, filed June 24, 1940............ SNARE 3033
Opinien on Merits, filed July 24, 1941....... id eee 3035
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of a filed Oct.
OG A kew ances ebehbadnehe en (eeUCCT es sec ccetece 3052
Judgment, entered. Oct. 14, 1941..... POR OE ret 3061
Notice of Appeal, filed Nov. 7, 1941.................3062
Statement of Points................0.000- wanilca 3062
Bond on ESE AE PP Oey SP oe Rec e .. .8065
‘Stipulated Designation of Record: ...............+. 3066
Agreed Statement as to Exhibits....:........... . . 3070
Stipulation as to an Abstract of the Record, i, approved .
by Judge Evans yore Skihekeheews Serrrerrrerrre 3083
UNITED STATES LETTERS PATENT.
* No. 1,392,629—C. P. Dubbs, Oct. 4, 1921....... va ee « 8086
No.. 1,537,593—G. Egloff, May.12,'1925......... oe
No. — . 7096—Reissue—R. S. Merrill, May 2, 1876. . .3105
No. 16,877—Reissue—O. Behimer, Feb. 14, 1928. . .3098
No.. -28,448—L.. Atwood, May 29, 1860............. 3110 .
No. 399,073-—G. H. Perkins, Mar. 5,1889...........3116
Welt, pp. i to 800; Vol x pp. 861 to 1088; Vol. EI, pp. ;
Vol. IV, pp. 1505 to 1983: + PP. 1995 to 9403; Vol. Wi, pp. 2495 to 3004;
Vol. Vit, pp. S088 to 3867. |
‘No.
No.
No.
- No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
‘No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
~ No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
' No. =
era ee Bae py SOF GS APA cA a 3318 <.
419,93i—J. Dewar, et al., Jan. 21, 1890....... /, 3122
477,153—C. M. Pielsticker, June 14, 1892....... 3126
954,575—J. Shaug, Apr. 12, 1910....:....... , 3140
1,049,667—W.. M. Burton, Jan. 7, 1913........... 3150
1,084,080—G: H. Gillons, Jan. 13, 1914...........3154
1,105,961—W. M. Burton, Aug. 4, 1914....... ....3164 |
1,119,700—R. E. Humphreys, Dec. 1, 1914.:...... 3170 |
1,123,502—J. A. Dubbs, Jan. 5, 1915............. 3174
1,170,884—S. H. Edwards, Féb. 8, 1916..........3182
1,175,909—W. A. Hall, Mar. 14, 1916........ ...3194
1,175,910--W. A. Hall, Mir. 14, 1916........ 8200
1,183,266—H. Zerning, May 16, 1916........... .3208
1,194,289—W. A. Hall, Aug. 8, 1916..... eae 3212
1,202,823—C. Forward, Oct. 31, 1916...... ar 3218
1,239,423—A. D. Smith, Sept. 4, 1917............ 3224
1,242,796—W. A. Hall, Oct. 9, 1917.............. 3230
1,245,930—C. G. Lambert, Nov. 6,. 1917........;.3238 -
1,249,278—C. Ellis,-Dec. 4, 1917............. ... 38248
1,250,050—N. W. Thompson, Dec. 11, 1917..... , 3254
1,250,799—J. W. Coast, Jr., Dee. 18, 1917...... . .3262
1,255,714—J. J. Curran, Feb. 5,-1918............! 3268 —
1,273,966—F. E. Wellman, July 30, 1918........ 3278
1,281,884—M. J. Trumbie, Oct. 15, 1918........ 3286
1,285,136—W. A. Hall; Nov. 19, 1918.....:...... 3302
1,288,711—L. O. Sherman, Dee. 24, 1918 Perey 3306
1,295,088—A.. F. G, P. J: Von Groeling, Feb. 18,
Pp. 1 to 580; Vol. 12, pp. 551. to 1082; Vol. pp. 1023 to 1503;
Vol
~~ Iv, pp 1566 to 1993; Vol. V, pp. 21906 to 2493; Vol. DP. 2495 to 3084;
xlii
oO
R. Rosenbaum, Dec. 16, 1919....:...3330 . |
No. 1,324,983—R.
No. 1 340, 740—P. McD. Biddison, et al., July 6, 1920. 3336
No. 1,388,629—J. W. Coast, Jr., ‘Aug. 23,. 1921:...... 3344
No. 1,396,999—C. Ellis, Nov. & AP vee douse
No. 1,407,619—C. M. Alexander, Feb. 21, 1922.......3364
No. 1,428,338—F.-T. Manley, Sept. 5, 1922...........3882
No. 1,428,339—F. T. Manley, Sept. 5, 1922........... 3388
No. 1,449,226—R. W. Hanna, et al., Mar. 20, 1923... . .3394
‘ No. 1,449,227—R. W. Hanna, et al., Mar. 20, 1923... ... .3402
. 1,462,143—-F. T. Manley, July 17, 1923.......... 3410
No. 1,488,325—C. P. Dubbs,. Mar. 25, 1924...4.......3416
No. 1,506,444—D. Pyzel, Aug. 26, ee!
No. 1,585,496—R. C. Holmes, et-al., May 18, 1926..... 3428
No. 1,597,821—D. Pyzel, Aug. 31, 1926...... eee
No. 1,622,737—D. Pyzel, Mar. 29, 1927.............. 3444
No. 1,638,735—L. C. Huff, Aug. 9, 1927:............ .3450
No. 1,640,202—F. T. Manley, Aug. 23, 1927......... .3456
No. 1,655,603—R. W. Hanna, Jan. 10, 1938......./.. .3462
No. 1,686,654—C. P. Dubbs, Oct. 9, 1938. ........... 3468
No. 1,740,691—C. J. Gréenstreet, Dec. 24,1929. ......3476
No. 1, 765,976—R: A. Halloran, et al., June 24, 1930... .3486
. No. 1,883,850—O. .Behimer, Oct. 18, 1932........ y. .. 3494
No. 1,891,218—D. Pyzel, Dec. 13, 1932.............. 3506
No. 1,937,959—L: C. Huff, Dec. ‘5, 1933....6....... +. 8512
. 2,039,797—L. C. Huff, May 5, 1936...........,..3520
Se ee ee WD. sas6 to 3088,
_ BRITISH PATENTS. |
No. 1 1706—Carl M. Pielsticker, or
No. 1922—George L. Benton, dc, Pere 3527
No. 6466—Carl M. Pielsticker, ee ce ee 3545,
_ No. 1308—Carl M. Pielsticker, 1891................. 3531
No. 6545—Hugh E. Fenchelle, eee pee 3551
No. 15 ,084—Milton J. Trumble, 1916. paaeus Pern eg be 3557 |
Order allowing certiorari ares 3587
RE a a ee
Vol. VII, pp. 3085 to 3567,
eo.
Testimony of. Daniel Pyeel. ‘551
Fad DANIEL PYZEL:
Redirect Examination by Mr. Hall
592 The furnace structure illustrated on PX 504 was of |
‘an old type and had been used in the petroleum in-
dustry at the time this unit was designed. ;
_ Ido not remember the length of the onstream period
593 on the Fleming stills, but I believe they were two or
three times longer than for Burton. charge for
these stills must be a distillate stock.
lithe operation of the Cross units a distillate was
never separated and returned with the fresh feed to.
the entrance of ‘the pipe heater. *
In the low level 'runs the length of the run was de-
termined by the amount of carbon that would deposit
594 in the chamber or by some other part of.the opera- .
tion going wrong. We tried to have a regular operat- |
ing schedule but could not always stick to it. |
‘*Q. On your cross-examination, referring to the
a you mac.> of the Dubbs still as operated at
Ladependene, you were asked whether you remein-
how-much gasoline was in the charging’ stock,
and you said, ‘I. wasn’t yery much interested, really,
in the results of that plant.’ Just what did you mean
‘by your statement that you were not interested in the Ss
results of the plant?
: “A. Iwas not interested in the results of the plant,
’ as it was built there, because I considered the plant,
as being not very well designed, and I was more in-
terested in the principle of the process than in the
products as they were actually obtained in that par-
ticular plant..
“*Q. You mean the mechanical construction was not
well designed?
‘“‘A.. The. mechanical construction was not well de-
signed. |
595 849 “Q. But did it fully exemplify the process or
‘the principle of the process which afterwards came
to be known as the Dub Erceyg: ?
or
- - §52 Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
‘“‘A. It did... ;
‘*Q. And did it fully exemplify the principle of the.
process and the. process which was afterwards a
ticed in all of tliese plants, practically all these pl
that you have referred to'as Dubbs process?
‘‘A, Yes, it did.’’
The charging stock used at Independence was su
posed to be normal gas. oil which would not contain
any gasoline. Although I testified that the reflux ra-, ~
tio was high in the Indeperidence- apparatus, I do not. }
recall the reflux ratio. -
596 ‘‘Q. You testified on your cross that you were in-
terested only in one point of the Dubbs process, What
was that point.
‘‘A. That point gvas not returning any. of ”
“cracked residué to te cracking coils,’’
850 Recross Etomination by Mr. Thiess. t
597.. The furnace of PX524 was a furnace which we used
_ in our own Trumble converter experiments. That would
take it back to about 1915.
In the Cross operation, in Roxana in 1921 and 1922,
we never mixed in our charging stock to that still any
of the distillate that did not come in the gasoline range
which we got from our pressure distillate obtained mn
598 the Cross operation. We did it later’on after we m
fied the plant by adding some towers to it, which pro-
duced various fractions of distillate, those fractions
that corresponded more-or less to the quality of the
raw material charged to the Cross stills were expéri-
mentally added to the’ raw charge. ‘ :
The dephlegmating equipment that we used there -
was not of the same type we recommended and used
on the Dubbs still. The principal difference is that it
was just a regular bubble tower equipment. The ef-
fect with the bubble tower was a little different because
it did not run under the pressure -of the cracking |
599: plant. It was a fractionating plant hook-up.
When we were making the synthetic crude in the
Cross operation, as we originally operated it before
Deposition of Richard-W. Hanna, =~ 553
we put on the dephlegmator, those fractions of, that
synthetic crude that were not in the gasoline range but
* in the gas oil range were experimented with. We re-
turned that to the raw oil storage for our Cross plant.
We mixed this gas oil fraction from the synthetic crude
with our charging stock and used that expérimentally.
| ue in the Cross still when we were operating these
_ —-=~~ 951 stills at Roxana dround 1921 and 1922.
ae _ *Q, That was when Dubbs and Cross stills:
_were both being operated at Roxana? |
‘‘A, Yes, experimentally. . eee
“Q. This Cross operation was a widely used proc-
_ ess, licensed -by the Gasoline Products Company, wasn’t. |
it? ae 7 * a. ae
600 ‘‘A.. It was used in other refineries also. | .
.... Q, And that is about the time that you were ex- .
perimenting with it in 1921 and 1922 at Roxana, isn’t .
that correct? cae Ee eine
"i A. As far as I remember, it was used in a few
other refineries. It was new at that time.’’
852 RICHARD W. HANNA:*
“514 Roehampton Road,
Hillsboro, California.
ae Direct Examination by Mr. Hall.
601 I am Vice-President of the’Standard Oil Company
602 of California. I have been associated with the com-
, pany since 1911, and my duties have been concerned
_ | with the. refining of crude oil, including cracking. —
603 The erude oil refining capacity. of the Standard
Oil plants in California approximates 100,000 barrels
per day. _ a oe
; - Standard Oil Company of California’s Use of Bur-
604 ton Shell: Stills and Burton-Clark Stills: Cracking
- operations to produce gasoline as a primary product
began in 1917 in ten Burton shell stills like that shown
in PX504. These operations were unsuccessful in that
_® Deposition given October 27, 1936.
554 Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
the cost of production of gasoline, twenty-five cents
per gallon, exceeded our realization of sixteen cents
per gallon. The total cycle of the Burton shell was
thirty-six to forty-eight hours, of which half was the
producing period the balance was for charging the
Still, cleaning out the carbon, and starting up. :
PX 505A is substantially the Burton-Clark still that
605 we operated for about a:year in 1918 or 1919, to com-
_ pare with the Burton sliell. The: Burton-Clark was
not a practical commercial operation for us. The total
ing the*tubes shell, starting up and shutti
607 ” Whb gebenuee en Gis Minden abe still was 80
and on the Burton-Clark tube still, 105 The
‘on-stream temperature on the: Burton still was
750 to 760° F.,-and on the Burton-Clark tube a
_853 little higher. The Standard Oil Cémpany of Cali-
fornia had a license to operate the n still
‘and the Burton-Clark still, which included right to
' operate under all of the Texas Company nts.
608 The Hanna Still: After the Burton o tions we
attempted to improve the results by a circu-
lation unit called the Hanna still. In the Hanna still
we circulated yy Mae ony residuum by means of a
pump through the heating unit and shell. The arrange-
ment of the heating tubes pump and shell are illus-
609 trated in the Halloran and ‘Strout patent No. 1,765,976,
PX 532. Thirty-five of these Hanna stills were built P
and operated, but were found not commercial.
The Modified Richmond Still: The next~develop-
610 ment was to insert baffi.a in the Hanna still in an at-
tempt to have less dirty oil go through the cracki
coil. This was in 1923, and was called the modi
Richmond stil. It is described in the Halloran ‘and
Strout patent 1,765,976. The modified Richmond still
611 was a slight improvement over the Hanga operation
but was not commercial. %
Cost of Experimental Work on Cracking Problems:
612 At this time we had spent upwards of five millions of
dollars and employed around two hundred technical
men in experimental and laboratory work in an at-
°
down. .
_” Deposition of Richard W. Hanna. 555
a :
tempt to solve our cracking problems. The cost of -
thaintaining this laboratory was a million dollars a _
year, and I had the full responsibility. - .
License Negotiations Between Standard Oil Com- —
pany-of California and Universal Oil Products Com-
613 con Witness was asked what was done after the
_ wo ‘on the modified Richmond still, and he answered
' as follows: Y
854 ‘At that point we observed a unit operated at .
the Martinez plant of the Shel] Oil Company,.a—
Dubbs unit, which we were allowed to visit, and tlhiere
- observed absolutely clean cireulation, and we par.
diately realized that is what we were after and started
to wogk on that line of development.’’
A report of this Dubbs operdtion was made to me
and as a result I wrote a letter to Mr..Mason dated —
October 4, 1923: . ns “elec
614 PX 533. The following is a portion of this letter:
‘‘In studying over these reports, it would seem to
me that we have picked up the following: _
First: Cleanliness is next to godliness. ~=§
Second: That the Dubbs people anticipate us in
appreciation of cleanliness. a
ird: That circulation can be obtained without
the use of a’ ;
Fourth: That higher pressures are very desirable.
Fifth: That it is questionable whether we have to
have gill rings on our heating element. :*
: Sixth: That if the maximum degree of cleanliness is
615 maintained, higher furnaee effici can be attained.’’-
616 PX 534: This is a report which Mr. Hamilton made
to me on the Dubbs operation at Martinez.
(Abstract of Exhibit): The unit: is described in
some detail and the conditions of operation are stated,
including temperature, pressure, operating time, and
quantities of feed and products. A tentative estimate .
of costs is given. - he
617 PX 535 is a report from Hamilton to me giving the ~
heat demands of the Dubbs cracking stills, and refers
’ to a blueprint: . ; ,
. PX 536, which shows Mr. Hamilton’s proposal of
an additional baffle in the Hanna still. = -
- 855 After our inspection of the Dubbs unit at Mar-
618 tinez, we started to modify the Richmond stills into
8
Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
clean circulation units, but this work was arrested by
the issuance, in March 1925, of the Dubbs overhead
feed patent No. 1,488,325, PX 537, which disclosed the
_ Clean circulation that we had in mind, and we asked our
patent attorneys to pass on the matter before wé went
any further. As a result of that investigation, Lyon
and Lyon, our patent attorneys, brought to our at- °
- tention an edrlier patent, Dubbs 1 392,629, ‘issued Oc- es
621 ,
622 ents
tober 4, 1921. °
cis 538 is a lotter a Mr. Adams, . employed by
our ipany in the capacity of superintendent of pat-
Hing to my attention that the Dubbs patent
2,629° is broader in scope than Dubbs 1,488,325,
No.
- 623 and points out that under our licenses with Indiana
we are licensed under ‘‘this Holmes, Manley and Be-
himer application which is in interference with Dubbs
early and broad patent.’ /
624
627.
. Prior to receiving PX 538, I had a meeting with:
~ Adame, Lyon and Lyon, and others, and the control of
this patent over what we were doing was pointed ont
‘to me.
PX 539 is a letter from Lyon and Lyoii to Mr.. Adams
which came to. my attention. A portion of this letter
reads as follows:
‘‘The Dubbs patent 1 (488,325 is viel gee hit by Mr.
Howard to be of any great importance Th he earlier
patent No. 1,392,629 grantéd to Dubbs on October 4,
1921, “is of much greater scope and significance. This .
‘Dubbs patent 1,392,629 discloses and claims quite
br oadly’ the first above mentioned sub-type of the | -
‘once-through a *tube and tank’ process: This pat-
856 ent is involved to some extent in interference pro:
ceedings that are now pending in the Patent Of-
fice with. The Texas Company and possibly others:
We are effdeavoring to obtain from the Patent Office
any available information concerning this interference,
_ the difficulty being that such proceedings are not open -
for inspection. This Dubbs: patent 1,392,629 does not
' disclose introducing the new stock into the top of the
f ractionating tower or dephlegmator for heat exchange
- and condensation purposes. This is the new feature in
y This is the Dubbs patent in suit.
629 —
—
- 632
Deposition of Richard W. Hanna.. . 557
"Dubbs patent 1,488,325 and to which na latter patent
is limited.’”” _~ |
Our attorneys, Lyon and Leen: gave us an opinion
on the validity of the Dubbs 1,392,629 patent and its
bearing on the modification of the ‘‘modified Rich- |
mond’? still, whereby clean circulation was obtained.
We sent for Mr. Halle* who arrived in July of 1924..
We spent several weeks trading and negotiating, and
I attempted to get rights under the Dubbs 1,392,629.
and 1,488,325 patents for as little.as possible, but Mr.
Halle: refused and I finally agreed to a license on Mr.
Halle’s regular. basis, which included a license notronly
under’ these patents but under others as well.
During these negotiations Mr. Halle brought to my
attention the Jesse A. Dubbs patent 1,123,502, but é
was not interested in that patent or othérs referred *
in PX 540 because my only interest was in the 1,392,629 .
- and 1,488,325 patents.
Asa result of the negotiations with Mr. Halle, the «
Standard Oil Company entered into a license ai
ment, PX 540: |
(Abstract of Exhibit): .The License agreement is -
dated August 15, 1924. Universal grants Standard a
non-exclusive license under five patents and twenty’
- pending patent applications, and Standard agrees to
" pay -a royalty of ‘fifteen cents (15¢) per barrel of oil
treated under the license. . Universal gives Standard .
the right to use any improvements - acquired by~
.: 857 Universal. Standard’s throughout under the lie),
cense is limited to, 200,000 barrels daily. A min’ -
- mum royalty of $20,000 annually is provided. Uni-
versal agrees to hold Standard harmless against any —
infringement of patents owned by, ethers by reason -
of. Standard’s practices under’ “a Universal license - 7
and to,defend any suits breug '
‘PX 541 is an escrow Peis which provided that
.the license agreement PX 540 was not to become effec- °
tive until Universal had conducted certain tests w hich
‘met certain quarantees as to the output.
_.* Mr. Halle was. and is the President of Universal Oil Products
Company. ;
558 Abstract -of Testimony on Merits. — - oes ;
a 549 is a supplemental license agreement, dated et
633 Aug. 15, 1924, extending the license agreement, PX.
540, to subsidiaries of the Standard Oil Company of
California, providing for autematic reduction in roy-
alty’ to equal: that of any more favored licensee, and
waiving and releasing al! claims for past infringement.
. PX 543 is. an agreement dated August 15, 1924. |
_ (Abstract of Exhibit): The agreement enumerates
the United States letters patent and applications owned
by Standard and refers. to corresponding patents or
applications in thirty-three foreign countries. Stand-
ard assigns these patents and applications to Uni-
versal for a consideration of $4,000,000 reserving od
‘itself and named subsidiaries the right to use the
ents. The consideration of $4,000,000 is to be pai in
monthly installments in amounts’ equal to twenty-five
percent of the total of all payments received by. Uni-
versal from Standard for royalties under the license —
agreement PX 540, Universal being under no obliga-
tion to pay any portion of the sum of $4,000,000 ex-
cept out of payments under royalties paid from Stand- —
‘ard to Universal under the license agreement. PX 542
provides that after full payment of the ang: price
of the Standard patents, as fixed in PX 543, the fu-
ture royalty tate is permanentiy reduced by one-fourth.
. 634 PX 544 is an agreement further defining the license
agreement.
(Abstract of Exhibit) : Standard’s right to “‘im.
-provements’’ under the license agreement does: not
_. cover chemical or catalytic methods or processes. —
858 PX 545 is an agreement dated August. 15, 1924,.
ich excludes ‘certain eharging stock from the
royalty payments. .
PX 546 is an agreement dated April 27, 1925, which"
-> covers a —_— royalty scale based on through-
put.
- PX 547 is an agreement dated April 30, 1925, which
_ states that the computation of the diminishing scale
636 will be based on the combined throughput of the Stand-
ard Oil Company on its subsidiaries in the United
States.
_. PX 548 is an ‘agreetiient dated March 1, 1926, and
refers to .a waiver of certain monies’ due under the
license agreement, PX 543.
Deposition of Richard W. Hanna. | | 559
_ > PX 549 is an agreement dated January 29, 1929, on
_ is.an amendment\further diminishing the sliding roy-
alty scale: \
Pursuant to these agreements, the license agreement, .
PX 540, was put in escrow awaiting the result .of 1.
‘demonstration run. made at the Associated Oil Com-
pany plant at Avon, California.. These test runs ful-
637 filled all the requirements of the agreement and the in- |
“struments were taken out of escrow and. delivered to.
638 the respective parties in May ,1925. .
The Standard Oil Conipany of California thereafter -
639 erected eight Dubbs units at the Richmond plant and —
. seven-at the El Segundo plant. PX 550 isa flow dia-
- . 640 gram of the first unit built under. the Dubbs license.
The dot and dash lines show a ‘‘flashing’’ operation,
.. whieh was not part of the Dubbs patent. . The exhibit
- shows alternate inethods of operation, but all setups
include clean-circulation. The.alternate arrangements -
were provided so as to compare the straight Dubbs
operation with our improved method of operating
Dubbs. PX 551-A and PX 551-B are photographs of
- the Dubbs unit shown on the flow diagram,. PX
859 550. - -
641 | Referring to PX 550, the oil was heated in. the
tubes in the furnace and discharged into the vertical
642 evaporators. Vapors and gas were discharged from
643.‘the tep of evaporators to the fractionating column. and |
then passed.on through the cooler. into .a receiving
drum and to storage.: The cracked residuum was re-
moved from the bottom of the evaporators and never
returned to the heating coil. The vapors in the frac-:
tionating column were cooled by the incoming feed and.
644 a portion of the vapors were condensed, forming re-
- - flux. The reflux and feed from the bottom of the frac:
tionating column were returned to the entrance of the:
heating tubes.
*. The pressure inaintained throughout the system was
645 270 Ibs., and about the end of 1925 the oil temperature
| at the outlet of. the tubes was around 900° F:, i.e.,
875-910° F. The charge used was gas oil and the yield |
— was 40 to 45 percent of 437° F. endpoint gaso-
ine
We made no ‘‘non-residuum’” runs because we had :
a large fuel oil market. The residuum was made into
a commercial fuel oil.
560 + Abstract of Testimony on Merits.-
647 At the conclusion of the demonstration run of the .
* Dubbs unit, the modified Richmond installation was sal. |
vaged and the Burton shell stills and the Burton-Clark | ;
‘stills were junked. ee | cee ;
The runs on the Dubbs-stills-were standardized. to
end at six hundred hours for inspection for safety. _ ~~
Such inspection disclosed ‘some carbon in the tubes -but
_, hot sufficient to causc a shut-down. Ee |
648 The royalty initially paid amounted to $2,500,000,
and, was based on the daily throughput, but sub.
860 seqtently a’ paid-up license was ‘taken. for - -
: $3, ,000. = ,
. 861 The total payment made by the Universal Oil -
Products Company in connection with the pur-
- Chase-of-the- property that was acquired from the ©
Standard Oil Company under the agreement, PX-543,—
649 was ‘$600,000, and. not $4,000,000,: as provided by the
y agreement, arid nothing further is due under that
agreement. We considered, and still consider, that
__ we have not received sufficient money for the inven-
650 tion covering the flashing set-up’ which was -sold to
‘Universal under that agreement, which at the time of
' the agreement was in application form. Said applica-
tion in the-name of Halloran and Strout was filed
ge 21, 1927, serial number 176,990, and forms
‘ oo : ;
862. Cross-Examination by Mr. Thiess.
651. _While I was manager of refineries and superintend-
, ent of the Standard Oil Company of California, I was °
652° acquainted -with and directed the experimental work.
'. I was closely acquainted with’ the development work
_ that Halloran and Strout were doing. |
‘We. paid $3,000,000 for a paid-up license under the .
_Dubbs patents in June 30, 1930, and at that time my
company acquired an interest in.the United Gasoline
'- . Corporation, which owned: the Universal Oil Products
692 Co. I think that this United Gasoline Corporation .
was.created at that time and now owns the Universal
Oil Products Co. : ; ;
The voting stock of the United Gasoline Corpora-
. tion is-new held one-third by Standard of California, ©
‘one-sixth by Gulf, and one-half ‘by Shell. ~ LS
654 Our original license agreement with the Standard |
e
g
ae Deposition of Richard W. Hanna. --
Oil. of Indiana was before 1918, and as a result we
were in a position. to utilize the-development in the
way of patents and patent applications of the Texas ,
Company. a . ;
- 655 In our operation of the Burton stills, which we con-
_.._-strneted in 1917, our procedure was to try to take
656 a predetermined percentage” Tethi :
| ‘per cent off. of the original gas oil charge. ° We never
charged any oil other than gas oil of approximately
26 gravity. There was so much: carbon collected in
gas: oil charges that it was obvious that fuel oil would
not run at all. It was our opinion that fuel oil in a
sly still was a-larger carbon producing stock than
gas oil. , cee ihe
» 657 863 . The residuum from the Burton stills.was sold
as fuel oil after being mixed with our other
residuum. We ‘never attempted to distill that resi-—~
duum, to get an additional charging stock for our Bur--
ton stills. The carbon deposited in the Burton shell
at the end of a normal run was a very .appreciable
- 658 amount.*That was the direct cause of most of the shut- .
downs. Ane
The charging stock which we used had‘a sulfur
-content as low.as we could hold it, This sulfur con-
tent gave us-some trouble as to the corrosion of: the _
_- metal of the Burton shell. :
659 As time went by, we reduced our pressure to main-
tain a proper factor of safety, from 80 pounds to as
- low as 40 pounds. The deterioration of the tensile
. strength of the. shell stills was due both to the scrap;
ing of the bottom of the shells and corrosion due to the
sulfur content in the oil. Both were appreciable. A
660 large part of the deterioration in the fire sheets was
- .eaused by the scraping. We had the same corrosion
difficulties with all-of the units, including the Dubbs:
. stills; until we started chrome plating to protect the
iron from the sulfur gases. We did not use. chrome.
° plating on the Burton shell stills. The reduction in
661 pressure to 40 pounds on the Burton stills reduced
our yield.’ As we reduced -pressure the hydrocarbons
in the shell still would\boil ap into the tower and re-
turn, resulting ina ver® great loss of heat. That
-materially increased our cost of ‘production which al-
ready was high.
' 562 ‘Abstract: of Testimony on Merits. -
662. We operated. these Burton stills about a year. We
-opetated at 80 to 95 pounds pressure for at least six
months and then had our engineers give us a new
working pressure of 40 pounds when we became .
frightened. During all this —" the oil temperature
was :750-760° rr
: 963 864—-In the “Burton-Clark Clark still we ‘used the same
charging stock that we used in the Burton shell
664 stills. We did not withdraw residuum during a run.
We withdrew the residuum at the end of the run
when we shut down and sent it to the fuel tanks. Our
regular running method was exactly the same as with
the Burton shell. Of course. we‘experiinented on many .
runs. This Burton-Clark -till was mostly run on as _ |
nearly a commercial operation as we could make it, = ——
comparing it- to the Bartow shett-— The temperatures | :
and pressures used were slightly higher; that is, 105 ~
pounds pressure and a few degrees higher i in tocnpers-
ture.
665. The yield on_ this Burton“Clark still was _a little |
higher than our Burton shell.. The Burton-Clark was ~
not commercial because not. profitable, due to low yield,
_ low production per dollar investment, —_ cost of op-
- eration and short time on-stream. .
666 I know that Burton-Clark stills were being ‘used
667 maniy places, but I don’t know whether.they were prof-_
: itable or successful. I do not think any of he refin-
eries in California were using Burton shells, or Bur- .
‘ton-Clark stills. We aimed for a standard run in this
' Burton-Clark still, and mostly we shut down before
we had attained our objective of 36 hours on, stream.
668 In the operation of this Burton-Clark still we fed over- -
-head during the operation. At the end of the run the
carbon was deposited in the tubes and.in the shell of
the drum. <A very considerable amount was in the
tubes. It was shut ‘down in almost every instance with
hot spots in the tubes. I can remember very definitely,
669 of scaling of carbon upward of. one-eighth ‘of an inch
in the tubes af_the end of a-run. I'‘remember them -
669 865 wheeling away wheelbarrows of carbon from | -
the shell. In the tubes the Carbon was very. hard
and in the shells, much softer..
670 ‘It was easier to remove the carbon from the shell i in
_ the Burton-Clark than to remove the -carbon in the
Burton shell still. - - 9
, -. |
Deposition of Kichard W. Hanna, 563
700 ~The yield of the Burton-Clark still and other data
regirding the same are: —
Charge 12,600 gallons; IN Cos;
» Fed in 15 400 gallons ; 7
3 Naphtha or pressure _distilate 16,950 gallons;
——401 Feed i in gallons per hour 475;-. .
Naphtha in gallons per hour 522;
Naphtha produced based upon total charge fades
the initial charge and the feed, 60 per cent. - ~
Crude gasoline products from total charge and feed,
_ 30-36 per cent.
- Temperature of evaporator, 730 to 770: F.
Pressure, 80-100 pounds. | | Se eee
Cycle time, 70h Peer re sy,
= __. Se 30:34 hours. 3
Idle, 40-36 hours.
671 The forced circulation still Se see prior to the
_’ Halloran-Strout to overcome the problem of the Bur-
ton and: Burton-Clark stills was, in effect, the same *
as if a pump was put in the inlet end-of the Burton-
Clark still; instead of depending upon thermo siphons,
_ there was a forced circulation: That was the principle
) _ involved. |
' 672 Hanna patents, Ne: 1 419,378 (DX 553),- 1,449,226
(DX 554) and 1,449,227 (DX 555) are patents on the
) work I had ‘reference me: 7
672 866 On this forced circulation Hanna still; we used
, ‘a pump. Undoubtedly, that materially - increased |
our circulation . through the tubes, but that did not
materially help‘any in the operation of the ‘process.
673 Our theory was to keep the pipes clean and to prevent
the deposition of carbon in the heating element. The
coils were so designed that as the cracking started to
take place we wanted the velocity of the mass and liquid
and the cracking vapors and gases to create a turbu-°_
. lence or froth and‘go through so rapidly as to prevent
the deposition of any carbon. We felt that we knew in’
1919 and 1920 that tlie condition inside of that coil
' * was a mixture of all, but we did not make and experi-.
ment to actually determine that: But our designing
engineers substantiated our belief with their design
and development of their design, in the pressures that:
le were obtained in their tests. That is the only kind of
- proof of increased. velocity: that I can. recall. _ This
564, Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
increased velocity did not help any in the operation
of that still—not sufficient to make it commercial. It
~~ was an improvement in that it ‘ran a little bit longer.
' 701 The Hanna still had an on stream period of 70 hours °
of a 100 hour cycle. The crude noe yield was 35%
Gf 45° gravity.. The crude gasoline was 20%.
_ 674 We used two kinds of pumps, centrifugal and.remote
plunger pumps for this purpose. The oil. that these
| pumps were pumping was around 750 or 760. We did |
not have any- materiel or-mechanical difficulties in
675 pumping oil at this temperature with a centrifugal
pump which we developed. The operation of the
plunger pump was for the most part poor 7
‘On the ports, in the centrifugal pump, w ehad trouble —
with the carbon originally. We did not overcome that . .
on that-unit. That was not the thing that shut us
down, asarule. — 3
675 867 I think that a pump man named: Lane took out
some patents for this centrifugal pump. At that
time a pump to pump hot oil at the pressures we were
676 using was a novelty, was something that had.to be ~
_ developed. ;
We built 35 Hanna-stills. Their cost was not in-
7 cluded in the $5,000,000 which we spent in development
work. I cannot say ‘what: part of the. development work
that-was done on the Hanna still was included in that
“$5,000,000. We built a unit and did experimental work.
‘until we finally thought we had a. commercial still, -
and that expense -would be naturally included in the”.
development work. When we finally. got to the place
_ where.we thought. we had produced gasoline on a com-
_. mereial basis, then we built the thirty-five stills. In.
‘,\ the experimental work that we did on the forced unit
we did not get to the point where we were making
gasoline on 4 profit basis, but we figured that we had
the experimental work to a point where it would pro-
duce gasoline on a commercial basis, or we would not
have spent money on the construction. ‘Obviously the
records must have pointed to.the fact that the still
_ 678 was going to be commercially successful.
«679 The experimental units which-we built were semi-
- commercial. They were good sized units about half
. the size of a plant unit. Ona unit of that size we would
- know when we projected it into a commercial still
Deposition of Richard W. Hawna, 565
. .. Whether it would work and we proved it. Twenty of -
‘+. 680 those stills were at. Richmond and fifteen at El
'. \ Segundo. We did not operate those commercial stills
\\at Richmond very long. |
\., After we got through with this so-called Hanna de-
681 velopment, the next development was the still which is
disclosed in the Halloran and Strout patent No.
> * - thon as (PX 532). This Halloran and Strout opera-
_- tion developed in. the latter part of 1922 and early
part of 1923. I was pretty close to this develop-
682 868 .ment and was sufficiently familiar with it so that,
~ at the time the specifications for. the patent for
‘the Halloran and Strout operation were prepared, I _
| aatis believed the statements contained in the- specifi-
Re: 682 869 cations to be true and correct. The Halloran
and Strout operation was called the modified Rich-
. mond-arrangement. = _
After. we had seen the Martinez operation we planned
. -683 on switching over from Halloran and Strout. We got
out our drawings and our plans, but before we made a
move to change them we were licensed under the Dubbs
and started from_the ground pp again. We never
changed the Halloran-Strout or modified Richmond
still, to one in.which we did not return any of the -
residuum to the heating tubes. I am not sure whether
we closed up one of the baffles at that time, or whether
“we were stopped from so by these patents. E
684 It wasa fing! it at Martinez which our organi-
zation saw but I never saw it. Our men were over
there te observe this unit during just one-run (PX
533); the Hamilton letter of September 8, 1923, is the
only report we have on that. This observation was -
685 made just prior to this letter, on ceptemmer 7.
In the Root case I testified :
‘Mr. Halloran was our research man. After that
communication. was. sent to Mr. Halloran of the re-
search and development department, we immediately »
‘started to convert our so-called baffle stills to abso-
lutely clean circulation in not returning any of the
cracked oils coming from the output of the tubes back
into the inlet of the tube, but feeding merely with clean
fresh feed and the clean reflux from the tower to the
tubes. ‘In comparison with what we have done there-
tofore.we found it solved our carbon troubles: I am
aay
. <a)
Abstract of, Testimony on Merits.
pide of the 15 and 20 units I have mentioned sev-
era! times converting them.’’ —
- 870 - That does not change Sy aetonting about |
~
688
the conversion of these s
vert them and we were. stopped in otr conversion
by. this patent situation.
-My-two statements mean the same thing to .me.
When we discovered the clean circulation, which we ©
found out at the Martinez unit, we.threw our hands
_ up in the air ahd gave a cheer, that we. had found
‘a solution to our problem, and we immediately went
‘to work to get out our ‘plans and designs to convert
the 15 and 20 units. I did not say. here that we had
_ completed them. I know that we did not complete
the 35.
I do not ‘know why, when we made the test runs,
we went to Avon rather than going back to Martinez.
_ Arrangements’ were made for the test runs by the
Universal, and they probably found that it was easier
to get these units turned over to them at Avon. |
know nothing about the Martinez units,.except the
report.that I got from Mr. Hamilton.
689 The runs at Avon were made by our men under
the supervision of one or more Universal men,. and
probably with some Associated man at the. plant.
690 PX 550 shows the flow of.the ‘regular: Dubbs as we
691
originally installed it in the first unit. The engineer-
ing designing on that was provided largely by the
Universal Oil Products Company. - The contribution ©
of the Standard Oil of California was not only the
flash operation. I imagine that our hot oil pump ex-
692
693
perience was employed, maybe the key, headers that
we used were employed, valves and miscellaneous little
things, but the principle was not changed. The ap-
paratus in which the operation was carried on sub- —
sequently was probably not modified from .that shown —
. on PX 550. All of our Dubbs units-had a flash _
871 chamber as shown-on Unit No. 1, on PX 550,
connected to them and operated only i in that way.
There: was no difference in the furnace of the units
used for the ‘flash and the one used for the regular
Dubbs operation. There was no heating plant to the -
flash unit. The furnace, itself, would be the ‘fegelar
—— at that time.
We started to con- .
Deposition. of Richard W. Hanna,’ 567
The Universal would have had somebody there for
supervision of those first runs made of these Dubbs
- stills that were installed at the Standard Oil of Cali-
694
695
fornia, and we had our own superintendent there,
and all of the rest of. us were probably standing right .
by watching.
If the Universal. tepresentative was there, he prob-
ably stayed until we said we could run them. After
that we permitted the Universal representatives. to
enter our plant at all times. ‘Without doubt, the ex-.
perts of the Universal helped us in the way of instruc-
tions as to how these stills should be run. ndoubtedly
he‘ told-us when to build ‘the fire, and how ‘rapidly,
and all of the details of operation.
We also operated at our plant a so-called Cross
unit. I don’t Fone as to-the financial side of it, but
_.it did not compare with the Dubbs because the unit
was ‘under a high pressure and. we could-ndt charge
as heavy a gravity charging stock because it carbon-
ized both in the tubes and in the drums. Also it had —
.* lower capacity per hour of gasoline, and, economically,
it was not in the same class as these other units, so
we converted it to a Dubbs unit. - =e
In. the operation’ of this Cross unit, the residuum
was withdrawn from the still and not returned to the
tubes. The feed was light oil. We operated this .
- 872 Cross still a sufficient number of times to satisfy
ourselves that it did not compare in efficiency °
697 ‘with the Dubbs principally. because of ‘the filling up
with carbon, and shutting down, and not ee or
quantity per hour. ~—
As of the time that I negotiated-for or this Dubbs
license in 1924, other cracking processes on the market .
that I knew of besides the Burton, the Burton-Clark, .
658 the Burton process. I possibly heard of the Isom -_
the Cross and Dubbs, that were being operated, was
Cosden. who had an. installation of units in which
they did not condense under presstre in order to avoid
Sinclair process at that time. I knew of the Holmes-
Manley process. I did not know anything about the
operation of the so-called Hall process ‘commercially. ©
I knew of the Rittman process, which was a process
gotten out during. the war.
. fe
I did not investigate, or do any” work in connection —
,
Abstract of Testimony on Merits,
i>. Ge soe wane Sas eee ae &
1924. I did investigate the Rittman and felt that it
. was not suitable for our We did not-try to
use that process. Doctor at that time our
chief chemist, investigated it and turned it down as
impracticable.
706 Inthe stock that we used, thai had this sulfur
707
710
content, that sulfur content in the stock required in
treating a r acid to reduce the sulfur to a stand-
ard for ine. It made it more expensive. ’
In the opération of DX which shows the Hanna .
or Richmond pressure still, oil was heated i
coil in the furnace. The oil was forced through :
coil with a centrifugal pump back into a 10x 30 shell. ©
Gas Ho ype vig oo Pog mo of the i
she through the dep ting tower,
873 through the planer,. through the condensers to
the receiving house, where pressure was controlled
and released, thé — naphtha going to storage.
were probably where I have marked ‘‘X."’ The burn- -
ers. discharged their flames into a combustion cham-
ber, the heating tubes in the furnace being enclosed
in a convexion chamber which was divided from the
combustion chamber by a bridge wall marked ‘‘Y.’’
This construction with the bridge wall -was utilized
in order to protect the tubes from the flamies of the
furnace. -At that time we thought. that that was
an important consideration in. the cracking operation
in the design of the furnace.
The connection marked ‘‘Z’’ is the pipe that leads
from the bank of tubes in the convection. section to
roof tubes marked ‘‘W."’ The arrows show the flow ~
in that direction. - These roof. tubes would be subject
to radiant heat in the furnace. As I remember, the
purpose of using these radiant 3 in this furnace
was for fuel efficiency.
‘This reflux and vapor fetarn line marked: “A,”
that is extended — the inside of the shell and
711 ticular construction assisted the operation in that
Se ee ee See wee ne
i e did not, as a practice, atmospheri-—
cally distill °
714‘ At the end‘ of a run we had a very serious amount ©
of carbon in the tubes which controlled the length
of time we could operate, and also apart was de-
posited in the shell. I don’t remember the relative
quantities. We set our length of run to the maximum
that the carbon deposition in the tubes would permit,
that is, we ran these stills until we got hot spots.
_ We attempted to run for a certain length of time.
Invariably hot spots started to appear earlier than
that, but if we thought the hot spots were not so
* serious as to cause a tube rupture, we might have
continued occasionally, and did continue until the
standard time had ela If the fireman and shift
* foreman thought the hot spot was serious the author-
ity to’shut down was left in their hands.
717 875 1921 to 1923 substantially covers the length. of
| time that the Hanna stills were operated.
721 .The commercial operation of the Richmond stills
~
ee
=
+
370 Abstract of Testimony on Merits,
‘of PX 556 was not exactly as.good as theexperimental
because we probably took more chances, and did not
need to‘ have so much oil under pressure and témpera-
“ ture and consequently went beyond. what would be a
_ . safer condition in the larger units. 3
I don’t recall whether in our experimental work,
we used that feed and reflux line which has been iden-
tified by the reference letter ‘‘A’’? on. DX 556. We
actually made the changes in this Richmond ‘pressure |
still of DX 556, which were later incorporated in our .
_ operation and known as the Halloran and Strout opera-
. ion, Pata ni
722 DX 557 and DX 558 are two drawings of the Hallo- .
ran and Strout operations. oo oa
723 These two drawings show the so-called baffle im-
provement. On DX 558 the baffle which I have marked
‘*A’’ was placed in the suction end of the shell, which
tended to separate the liquid in that end of the ‘shell
from the liquid in the balance of the shell. An open-
ing was left in the bottom of this. baffle so that the
surplus’ liquid returning from the circulation could
flow into the balance of the shell. I have marked
that ‘'B.’’ The shell holding the main: body of oil
had additional loose baffles marked ‘‘C’’ and ‘“‘D.”
The vapors rising from the forward compartment .
passed through the. vapor.lines which went through
the forward baffle ‘‘A’’ releasing the vapors in the
back: chamber. Soy aie ;
. These vapor lines were perforated for that pur-
pose and are marked ‘‘E.’’ The feed and reflux was
724 conveyed into the front compartment by the line
. _* marked ‘‘F.’? (The line ‘‘F’? in DX 558 dis-
876 charged directly over the suction to the pump,
' whereas in DX 557 this return line merely went
through ‘the tight baffle. ; | :
In the ‘operation of this modified Richmond or
Halloran and Strout still, I assume we first operated
_with a.chamber in accordance with DX 557 and later
.
in accordance with DX 558. a. |
The ‘diffcrence in dates on the two drawings, namely
8/30/23, and 1/22/24, would indicate how long a
‘period this modified arrangement according to the
- showing on DX 557 was utilized.
725 The apparatus in which the Halloran and Strout,
Deposition of Richard W. Hanna, 571
or modified Richmond, process was operated was sub-
stantially identical with the Hanna apparatus of
- DX 556, except for the modified chamber illustrated.
- 702 in DX 557 and 558. In this-still the charge was 26
- gas oil gravity from which a P. D. having approxi-
mately: a 50 gravity: was produced, which was ap-
proximately 48 per cent. of the charge; from the
P. D. approximately a yield of 39 per cent. Based
- on the charge crude gasoline was recovered., The re- ~
cycle stock from the front compartment had a. gravity
of 20 degrees Baume, and the residue drawn from the '
‘rear compartment ha@ gravity of 17 degrees Baume.
All the Hanna stills were converted in 1923 or 1924
into the Halloran and Strout type, and they were all
abandoned by December ‘of 1925. hee
. In the operation of these stills the average on--
stream period was 70 hours ‘and the complete cycle
ves from 90 to 95 hours. The word ‘‘cycle’’’as I have
~ ysed it connotes the period from charge to charge in.
’ the operation of the still. ie
' 725 877 PX 532 represents a flow diagram of the way
the Halloran and Strout process was operated at”
. the Standard Oii Company of California. There are
vapor heating chambers there which I do not recall
726 if we put.in. We operated with solvent oil a few
‘times. I do not think that solvent proved out as of any
~ material value, so we did not continue having a sep-
arate solvent feed. The cost of ‘all experimental work
was charged to the $5,000,000 which I have previously
referred -to. If we experimented with that solvent
727 oil that was charged to it. When we did any changing»
in our regular operations in the nature of experi-
mental work that would be charged to experiments.
_ Referring to PX 532, Halloran and Strout patent -
No. 1,765,976, Fig. 2 shows a high oil level in the
compartment 12, which is the rear large compartment,
and a low level in the compartment 10, which is the
‘front compartment. I think our commercial opera-
tions were conducted with the level in the front com- - .
partment lower than the rear ~ompartment but T
cannot say whether Drawing Fig. 2: properly reflects :
the levels that we used commercially. |I do not know
what the difference in levels would be now.
728 The withdrawal of the charge and- vapors and bank-
572
Abstract of Testimony on Merits. -
ing of the vapors in the front compartment only would
-seffect a. slight difference in lével in the two ends of
. 728
the drum. The greater part of the vaporization which
occurred in the process was effected in chamber 10,
the’front compartment and it .is my-idea of what oc- -
curred that the vapor thus formed in this front com-
partment held the level in compartment 10 lower than
‘the level in compartment 12. The vaporization which *
occurred in this front compartment 10 was the re-
878 sult of the cracking that occurred in the heating
element, and to a very large extent realized in
that compartment. Cracking also occurred in.com-
partment 10 to a very much less degree. ‘The pressure:
in compartment 10 and in the tubes was not the same;
the tubes had higher pressure, with the friction and
the cracking result that took place in the tubes.
Q. If the pressure in the tubes was higher you
would get more vaporization in compartment 10 at the
lower pressure, would you not? | 7
_ A. The projection of cracking coming out in the
mixed turbulent froth was released -in this,.and the
separation of these cracked products would take place
in that eompartmenty ° oh
Q. I do not know whether we exactly understand
--one another. Is it-your understanding that as soon as
- eracking occurred vaporization occurred? se
- 730
A. That is rather a technical question, but our |
belief was, and ms belief. still is, this, that 60 per.
cent of the cracked gases were generated and . pro-
duced in the tubes, and that, say, 40 per cent of the
balance would. be a tesult of the time element in the
chambers 10 and 12. So that the 60 per cent that was
created in the tubes would be released .when it was
- + expanded into compartment 10, and would pass out of
- that compartment through vapor lines. A litéle addi-
_tional would be created from the body of oil in eom-
731 ©
731
partment 10. The balance would be generated “or
created from the body of the oil and soaking time cle-
ment in compartment 12. As the cracking occurred
in the tubes, vapors would be generated. The part of
the cracking which occurred in the chamber 12 is the
Tesult of the time factor that the body. permits of.
879 How long it is T do not know. We also thought
that we were adding heat to the vapor line and
- assisting our cracking in that manner. In other words,
Deposition of Richard W. Hanna, | ‘573
we believed that our vapors were considerably hotter -
and would serve to assist to reduce the temperature »
drop in chamber 12, caused. by. the cracking reaction -
and vaporization there. = : ss .
as the vapor wliich.was released through the
tubes 14 utilized to heat the oil, or was that vapor used
more from the standpoint of creating a partial pres-
. sure effect to cause vaporization? “
732
733
A. Our idea, as I look at it now, must have been.
heat rather than partial pressure, because partial
pressure -would convert more readily into a vapor.
. In other words, the partial pressure would take
the liquid out of there.and defeat tle idea’ of time
factor? ie. | Boor
A. I do not see how it could defeat the time factor.
The oil quantity in the compartment maintained a
constant level. What the theoretical result would be
would be a technical question. .
Mr. Hanna, because of the longer time factor
that was maintained in chamber.12, it is true, is it not,
that the main precipitation or settlirig out of the car-
bon, tarry bodies, or heavy derivatives or cracking
takes place in this chamber? .
A. As said before, the relative quantity of carbon
deposit,. weight, I have no recollection of, but the car-
bon deposition that controlled our success or failure
was that which deposited in the fubes. That is all 1
733
can say. | Baers
Let me ask you, Mr. Hanna, do you agree, and
when this patent application was drawn did you con-
sider this statement on page 3; beginning with line 101, |
to be correct, reading as follows: Bae oui
880 . ‘*The reacting oil is maintained for an appre- °
eiable time in this chamber 12 and the main pre-
cipitation or settling out of the carbon, tarry bodies,
or heavy derivatives or cracking takes place ‘therein.
_ The period of reaction is thus prolonged by the. re-
734
‘action of the oil in the final evaporating chamber 12,
_as described, without permitting this prolonged reac- ~
tion, and the consequent precipitation and settling out ~
of the oil of the heaviest derivatives, to effect the
operation ofthe cyclic system, which includes, as_be-
fore described, a heating zone or coil and a cycling
chamber in which latter material vaporization is ef-
-fected.’’ a" Wer
574 . » | Abstract of Testimony on. 1» Merits.
735 ‘A. The normal manner in which I read a. eaten’
application was to read ‘the claims, have it explained
to me by the patent attorneys, and possibly the inven-
tors, and release them'‘to take out a patent application
on the subject. I cannot say that I read the descrip-
tion-of many of these patents, and, therefore, I cannot. |
say. now that I read this_paragraph- reférred to, and —
.736 therefore cannot say that I agreed or disagreed with it.
' Q. Do you agree with it now? - ;
A, I am not competent to agree to anything on the’
technical side. . It is a matter going back twelve years.
During this period I have been away from the techni-
eal end of:it. It is not a question that I would: expect
to be asked or to be expected to try to answer.
' In this Halloran and-Strout commercial operation,
all of our residuum went ‘to fuel oil eventually. It
might have paused in two or three ‘tanks, but even-
tually it got down to the fuel oil tanks. _'TKe tempera-
tures: and pressure that were used in the com-
. 736 881 mercial operation of Halloran and Strout would
be approximately the same as the so-called Hanna
. operation. The carbon in the tubes was hard and
‘difficult to remove. The carbon in the shell was rela-
tively soft.
737 The purpose of the Halloran and Strout. eration
- as compared to my previous Hanna operation was to
reduce the amount. of carbon that we were having de-
posited in our tubes. The way we hoped to effect that
was by keeping the stock going into. the tubes cleaner, |
from tarry, cracked bodies. -We wanted the stream
to contain the maximum amount of the clean residuum
and charging stock.
Q. And you understood at that time, did you, that
_the return of residuum would cause trouble in the
. tubes, from the standpoint of ‘carbon deposition?
A. Circulating carbon cracked bodies had given us
738 the carbon trouble. —
Q. And you understood that the return of these
cracked carbon bodies would: give you that trouble at -
that time.
A. I think that I knew it very definitely.
The return. of the residuum to the coil, that is, the
part that we did return would give usa greater amount
of pressure distillate; anything we put. through the
coil and cracked would oo us more distillate.
-
739
Deposition of Richard W.'Hanna, .. 515.
The approximate. cost of one of these Hanna stills
that I.have referred to as the Richmond still is ap-
proximately a little over $100,000 per unit. This
‘Halloran and Strout application, PX 552, and the
patent that is to One on .said plication-were—as-—
_- signed-and belong to the Daivercal Oil Products:
882 Company. .I Nallews we turned this: application -
over to the attorneys of: the Universal Oil Prod-
~ uets Co., and they continued the prosecution. T eannot
- 742
743
Say. accurately.
_I understand that the: Dubbs unit at Martinez was
a commercial unit. PX 534 describes the Martinez
unit and comments on the Halloran-Strout unit, bring- —
ing out that the Dubbs people realized. the value of
_ keeping clean stock in the tubes. .
883 In PX 534, under the heading ‘‘Chamber’’, the
: ° statement is made that it will hold 26 tons of eoke.
The coke-holding eapacity of this chamber determined
the length of the run when running non-residuum. As
I recall it, the Shell practiced non-residuum operation. |
- The coke- holding capacity of the reaction chamber
on a residuum run of the Dubbs operation, as prac-
ticed subsequently, never determined the length of the
run with us, both in the flashing. operation and the
‘ Dubbs operation without the flash in so far.as we
operated them. We operated without flashing com-
paratively little. I cannot say how many runs we made
- without flashing. Enough to satisfy us as to the rela-
' tive advantage of the twe systems, however.
744
In PX 534, under the heading ‘‘Pressure’’ he says, ~
‘“‘The unit is operated at 120 pounds gage.’’ The
pressures used by the Standard Oil of California, as - .
indicated on PX 550, are much higher, of an order of
310 to, 375.. I think we ‘actually operated with 270
pounds, and we went up in pressure to get the higher
. temperatures, on the recommendation of the Universal -
Products. Co. from their experience in designs, for
_ better yield and more efficient operation. The ‘tem-
peratures shown on this diagram_(PX 550) at these
pressures are 860 and 880 at. the.outlet of the coil. I
_ don’t think we ever operated at that pressure. The.
pressure indications on the drawing are not the pres-
sures that we operated under in commercial operation.
Q. This drawing (PX 550) was produced, was it
not, to show what vou were ee commercially?
=
576 | Abstract-of Testimony on Merits.
A, Not necessarily, from the detail standpoint as
to the pressures that we-were to operate on when
_ 145 884 our-engineers decided on: the pressures, ete. It
“might well have been outlined as the objective;
when the unit was constructed.,the safety engineers
would have to pass on the pressures we could. operate —
on at that time. _ ‘oe
Q. This drawing, then, is not a showing of the
manner in which you actually operated, as far ax tem- _
peratures and pressures and other indications o1 that
sort are concerned? = __ ne aS ae
.. A. This undoubtedly was not‘ a record of runs,
_ because we-kept our records in another form. This, —
as it says here, is a flaw diagram, indicating the method .
‘that we would operate, the principal that we were to
use, and it does outline that. 3 .
270 pounds, as I recall, was the pressure that the
safety enginéers passed on.. That pressure was pos-
746. sibly used both on the Dubbs and the flashing system,
the same. factor of safety controlled both in operation.
_ We never did operate that. Dubbs unit at lower pres-'
|, Sures, not as a commercial practice.
749 On the last page of PX 534, the fourth paragraph
from the bottom, lie says: ‘‘You can see from the
above that the equipment is very similar to ours, only
_.that he does not use a pump to cireulate.’’ This non: -
use of a pump would affect the operation only as to:
. the head on the inlet end of the coil. The differential
. of pressure across from the. inlet to the discharge end
of the coil is substantially the head required to over-
‘come the friction through the system. . In the case of
. the elevated gravity head of the Dubbs, it would all -
depend upon the height of the gravity head, whether
750 it equaled the pressure developed by the pump. A
" pump would give. you positive circulation. through the
; tubes. as-long as ‘it opérated. How that circula-
750 885 tion would compare with the circulation that. you
| would get with an. elevated dephlegmator would
depend entirely upon the capacity of your pump and
the height of the dephlegmator. :
Q. Would ‘you consider one better than the other,
or are they equivalents? | ee
A: I think we proved. the pump the practical thing. .
751 Referring now to PX 935, which is a letter of Octo-
ber 1, 1923, written to me by Mr. Hamilton, in the sen-
. 4
Deposition of Richard W. Hanna, 817
tence immediately ‘following the tabulation of heat
demand in B.T.U.’s, a statement is made that the
- “Velocity in tubes is approximately 3.7 feet per sec-
752
753
753
ond’’. I have.not got the velocity which the Standard
Oil. of California used in their units as exemplified
in Exhibit 550, where they used pumps, but I think it
would be a considerably greater velocity in the Stand-
ard Qil of California operation. “I
This drawing, PX 536, was attached to the letter
PX 535, and is referred to in said letter. PX 536_
shows the Halloran and Strout unit previously de-
scribed with a suggestion of Hamilton to keep the
coke, that was formed and carried in suspension in the
discharge from the furnace, from being picked up by
the suction of the pump and returned to the heating
element. This was one more step in an‘endeavor to, |
keep the tubes clean. | eee ae :
It was proposed to put ari extra baffle marked ‘‘A”’.
‘and extend the discharge from the heating coil shown in .
dotted red,, which I will mark ‘‘B’’; the discharge thus -
opening on the opposite side. of this proposed baffle
marked ‘‘A’’, from the suction which I have marked
“C’’, The hoped for effect was to settle out the car-
bon without letting it get to the pump. In,the
886 blueprint the opening I have marked ‘‘D’’ .was
considerably.off of the bottom of the shell, so
as to give room for this carbon to come to rest.
ee
I don’t know now whether we ever operated ae-
cording to the showing on this drawing. The furnace
there shown and the rest of the equipment, except for
the changes I have indicated, are the- same, sub-.
5 stantially, as the equipment. shown in the drawing Ex- —
hibit 556, as modified by the chamber of Exhibit 558.
Under item 3 of PX 533 I said, ‘‘That circulatian
-gan be obtained without the use of a pump.’’ By that
I mean the elevated dephlegmator tower. I did not
consider that advantageous in view of our develop-
ment work on pumps. We had developed our centri-
> fugal pump.to a point where we believed that it was
better than the elevated dephlegmator tower. Un-
der item 4, I said, ‘‘That higher pressures are very
desirable.’’ I said that because ‘higher pressures
might have better efficiency in the fuel consumption.
578 Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
757 In addition to the heat demand, higher ‘temperatures
would be possible and thus give more yield in the
cracking. operation. ;
We never practiced the Dubbs process, using “an.
elevated déphlegmator other than in the-experimental
work at Avon. There I think we did not use the
pump but used the elevated dephlegmator tower.
Since the other day I have looked up the question |
_ whether we ever actually made the changes in the -
Halloran and Strout still to incorporate any
as a result of what we saw at Martinez and find that
this work-was only planned on \the drafting board -
.. ... &8 shown by /the drawing DX 559, and. was not
757 887 put into operation in the Halloran and Strout
_ etal: daira Salil | ate : .
Referring to this drawing DX 559, which is the
760 drawing attached to the Halloran and Strout appli-
. cation, starting at the outlet of the heating coil the
heated cracked oi] was to have gone—I say that he-
: cause this unit was not constructed—to the chamber
761 marked ‘‘A’’, the vapors rising from this chamber
to the column marked ‘‘B’’, the naphtha vapors going
on to the vapor line marked ‘‘C”’, to the condenser
marked “‘D’’, to the receiver marked ‘‘K’’, where
_ the gas was released and the naphtha delivered to
_ Storage. The residuum from chamber A was re-
leased into the tar flashing chamber marked ‘‘F’’,
where the gas -oil cracked was distilled by residual
heat overhead, to vapor line marked **G’’ and ton-
denser marked ‘“‘H’’. As a matter of actually put-
ting this into operation, the condenser marked ‘‘H’’
was not employed when we constructed, as we used .
fresh feed to condense -this vapor, thus preserving
the heat. The- condensate from this flashing opera-
tion, together with part of the feed, was forced
through the heating coil along with the balance of the
_ feed which was injected into the tower and the reflux
stock from the tower. . .
762 A temperature is given for the chamber of appar-
ently 8°0. The temperature at the outlet would be
a little bit higher.
Deposition of Richard W. Hanna, 819.
In this drawing the furnace is shown conventional.
The fire/is indicated at the left-hand of the furnace.
_ According to our practice up to that date there would
have been a bridge wall in front of those tubes. Under.
- those cireumstances the feed to the coil comes, in at
the hottest part of the furnace and comes out at the
coolest part. ‘We did not operate this so the feed did
not actually go in. When we did operate, as l, .
763 888 remember the later practice, we developed a fur- |
nace design to arrive at the injection of the. new
feed in the hottest part of the furnace. If we did
this it was only to get better furnace operation.
_ This thing that we see here that is referred to as .
a jet pump is in dotted line. A jet pump is a type
of. pump for any purpose. As I recall,.if the pump |
764 marked ‘‘Secondary pump”’ which fed: the oil to the
coil should not deliver enough oil to the coil for the
proper operation, then we would withdraw to the left
for the bafflle ‘‘Z’’ with our jet. pump and cycle oil
from’ the chamber through the coils and that would be
until we could get the fire shut down and pulled out
_ to keep from blowing up the unit.. '
765 I note that the condensate coming from the tar
_ ‘evaporator ‘‘F’? comes down into what is termed
the main feed line, and then in this main: feed line
there are arrows pointing toward a cycle stock
storage tank, and an arrow pointing away from the
cycle stoqs storage tank, It was not contemplated to
_ run some of the cycle stock from the tar evaporator .
into a storage tank unless there was @ surplus of it.
_ When we actually started to operate the flash system
there never was a surplus.
I have no opinions or correspondence other than
I have thus far produced from our patent attorney
766 on the Dubbs ’325 and ’629 patents: = |
S, r patent attorneys advised us that the Dubbs
patent No. 1,392,629 was at that time in interference
withthe Holmes, Manley and Behimer application,
Serial No. 401,623. At that time our patent attor-
neys made such investigation with respect to
766 889 this interference, No. 49,355, as they could. It
° ‘would be normal to do that befofe we sent for
Mr. Halle. ar :
te» .
580 Abstract of Testimony on Merits. *
767 I did not know that in the Behimer application
_° the claims jof the Dubbs 1,392,629 patent had been
-.copied for the purpose of the interference. Our at-
torneys did not tell me that. I did not consult with
The Texas Company respecting this situation to as-
certain their position with respect to the Holmes,
Manley and Behimer process and this interference,
The attorneys may have. I do ‘not know how far
they went with their investigation. I only know .
that they advised us against disregarding the Uni-
versal Oil Products Co. patents and recommended to
us: that we had better get that coverage before we
went ahead. Z "jal ee oe :
768. We were willing to take our. chances: on condensa-
769 tion under pressure, covered by -the Universal Oil
Products Company patent to J esse A, Dubbs, because
' 770 we felt that we had the Standard Oil Company of
Indiana as a buffer, first, and secondly, there was
prior, art which was’ sufficiently clear to us so that
we felt the Jesse A. Dubbs patent would never be
‘sustained. The other arguments that Mr. Halle used
769 as to his other patents were given but little weight .
in my mind, as I felt Mr. Halle was trading. Mr.:
770 Halle brought up references. to many patents, most
' of which we were familiar with. He referred to-
mechanical device patents, cleaning of still patents,
and I took the position that if we did not have rights
-to any of those patents which I . considered minor,
we could possibly get around them. I told Mr. Halle
this, to which he replied it would cost us & great deal.
more money to try to get around any of these patents.
The question as to taking chances on the Holmes, |
Manley and Behimer was distinctly different from
770 890 the others, in that our patent attorneys felt that
| we had to deal with Universal Oil Products Co.,
on these patents, whereas they advised us that we
were taking no risk if we did not. deal with Universal —
Oil Products Co. on the Jesse A. Dubbs, so that in
both casés we were doing what our patent counsel
advised. sae he
772 ~=In spite of what Mr. Howard and Mr. Adams stated
Deposition of Richard W. Hanna. 581
in -PX..538 and 539 as to the possibility of Dubbs
~ Josing the interference, we were desirous to get pro-
tection under the two patents in question; the ’325
patent, which included the fresh feed being’ pre-
- heated in the vapor column was also a vital part.of
_ our proposed operation, and the. weight we put upon
773 the advice and the study is borne out by the fact that ©
; we later did sign a license agreement which cost a
great deal of money, running into millions, and we .
did that with our eyes open as to‘the cost..
Company had acquired riglits from the Dutch Shell
| think that when'I discussed this matter with Mr.
Halle he advised me that the’ Universal Oil Products
to license or grant immunity under the Trumble
patent No. 1,281,884. — ot ages rs
-Referring to thé letter, Exhibit 539, from our at-
torney, Mr. Lyon, he. again quotes Mr. Howard as .
stating ‘‘Apparently Mr. Howard knows of no definite |
| ground of invalidity of Dubbs patent 1,488,325, and
774 believes that this patent will have to be avoided. Mr.
eward is somewhat concerned with the possibility
of a suit being brought at some future date against
> for infringement of Trumble 1,281,884 by The Sheil
ompany. The. Shell and Dubbs interests are ap-
. parently working together.’’ : ce \ a |
"the Universal Oil Products Company. only paid
- approximately $600,000 pursuant to PX 543 providing
for a payment of: $4,000,000 for Standard of Cal-
891 ifornia patents. The remainder of the $4,000,000
was not paid because we bought a paid-up license,
- 775 and if we did not pay any more annual royalties, of
. course, the ——— for patents on the basis of a 25%
_ refund was off. eae : :
Among the patents involved in this sale are five
patents. issued in my name, namely, patent No. 1,-
419,378, DX 553; No. 1,449,227, DX 554; No. 1,449,226,
DX .555; No. 1,408,698, DX 560; and No. 1,655,603,
DX 561. Those ate some of the patents for which this
.: consideration was paid. | ae. |
* 776° In this transaction in which the paid-up license’ was |
_ purchased there were some notes issued at the time
of the agreement. ‘The Standard Oil Company of New -
Jersey took $3,000,000, the Standard Oil of Indiana
° a vv
582° Abstract of Testimony om Merits,
777 took $3,000,000, Haile retained the Shell
$6,000,000 betwees them, T thiak a t6 ifornia took
$6,000,000 between them, I a total of $15,000,000.
These notes were not’ bonds. They were
inte . . |
778 the herp ow bey, a mine hyd —e
number o immunity agreemen no w
the dill af tian wee.
At the time that I discussed this license agreement
’ with Mr. Halle I made a stndy of the Dubbs 1,392,629"
tent.
Westioneny Under the Rule:
Att At that time, as a man skilled in the art, what
- 779 was your understanding of the in the patent
that ‘the oil in the heating tube sho ty bert yoy
i ae wittoet substantial vaporization?
Mr Now, your Honor, that is objected to Rang
outside the direct examination, and ae
material. This man, of a a
technical expert. He was ed merel ay &
892 testimony as to what had been done the Stand:
_. a ht about it.
781 The Court: I think the ehjeltion should be sus-
tained; and the matter will be read into the record.
Should I afterwards change my opinion when I come
to read it, I will indicate it; but at this time my opinion
is that the objection should be sustained.
782. A. It would mean during this heating in the tube
there would be no separation from the mass or mixture
F om
7
Depasition of Richard W. Hanna.
©
amined as to his opinions or as a technical expert. This —
ee ee ee ee Sete Ts
time in this way, more particularly as he is now in-
volved in the dock strike which is on at the present
moment in this city, where the operations of his com-
pany.are carried on, and in connection with which his
corviies are a by his company.’ .
**In other words,— ee
‘*The Court: His time was taken up? .
‘*Mr. Von Holst: Go on reading, Mr. Hall.
<.
~- + —-- =
* This statement/not under the rule. *
084°
786
Abstract of Testtmony on Merits.
_“*Mr. Thiess: Go on reading, Mr. Hall.
-“*Mr, Hall: ‘The witness: is now instructed not to
answer this question until he is advised to do so by
the Court.’ | ee
894 ‘Mr. Thiess: ‘Q. Mr. Hanna, I wish to call
your attention to your patent No. 1,449,226, De-
fendant’s Exhibit 555. This is directed, is it not, to a
cracking process? 7 ae: .
ae Ce ees
‘Q. -I refer you particularly to page 2, beginning
with line 20, which reads as follows: ki
‘ **We take a charging stock, therefore, with a ma-
terial range of boiling points; to wit, of not. less
than 200 degrees F., and in the primary heating keep
such stock’ under such a pressure as to at all times
during such primary heating prevent vaporization of
-any material portion of-the charging stock whereby .
substantially all the charging stock is at all -times
during such primary heating retained ‘iin liquid form °
187
and cracking thereof substantially avoided.”’
In that statement do you use the word ‘‘vaporiza-
tion’’ to indicate. vapor formation?’”’ _ .
‘“‘Mr. Haight: I was going to say that is the same —
question exactly that. your Honor. ruled’ out the other
day. ‘
‘““The Court: Yes. — bh is ae
_‘*Mr. Von Holst: The witness was instructed not
to answer, your Honor. a
‘*Mr. Thiess: Instructed not to answer, | /
‘*Mr. Von Holst: , So there is no question before the
Court. | . ne se
- “The Court: There is nothin in the record.
‘“‘Mr. Thiess: But we would like the record to show :
that this witness was instructed not to answer. _
**Mr. Hall: Of course the Court will have. in mind
that counsel had an opportunity at that time to certify
that question to the Court: that would have issned the
sibpoena and had it ruJed upon, and he did not avail
himself of that opportunity. — : ie
“*Mr. Thiess: Counsel was satisfied with the in-
struction to the witness not to answer. -
‘‘Mr. Hall: All right. Pits |
‘‘Mr. Thiess: Which we thought was more potent
than getting an answer from the witness. + |
.
/
Deposition of Richard W. Hanna. 588
895 ‘‘Mr. Haight: Not to consume the time of the
Court here, you see that we were right, Mr. Thiess, —
788 or rather Mr. Hall was, because I wasn’t there.
‘“‘The Court: All right, proceed..
(Counsel continues reading :)
‘“¢Mr, Hall:° The same objection and the same
instruction to the witness until advised by the Court.
‘Mr. Thiess: Q. In that statement what do you
mean by ‘‘substantially all the charging stock is at
all times during such primary heating retained in liquid
form and cracking thereof substantially. avoided’’?
‘Mr. Hall: The same objection, and the same in-
struction to the witness. nity gaa ee
_ ‘Mr. Thiess: Q. I refer you again to page 2-of |
the same patent, lines 32 to 40, and ask you whether —
the word ‘‘vaporization’’ as there used‘ means vapor -.
‘ formation? ae ;
¢Mr. Hall: The same: objection, and the same in-
struction to the witness. :
‘Mr. Thiess: Q. ‘I refer you again to this patent—"
‘‘Mr. Haight: Just a moment. I understand that
your Honor ruled both of. those question out. =
‘“‘The Court: Yes. — pare
(Counsel continues reading:) ,~
_ ©4Q, “I refer you again to, this patent at page 4,
789 line 50,-to the statement: ite Rens
‘ “«By thus primarily heating the charging stock we
- ‘are enabled to most materially reduce the heat demand
upon the heating element of the cracking system proper
. ‘which, therefore, need not be gredter than to supply
- the heat of the reactiori, vaporization, refluxing and
radiation losses, thereby eliminating excessive erack-
ing of portions of the oil.’”’ Does the word ‘*vaporiza-
tion’’ as there used mean vapor formation? |
‘Mr. Hall: The same objection and the same in-
‘ struction to the witness.’ ©
‘‘Mr. Haight: The same ruling?
‘‘The Court: ‘Same ruling.
~~ 896 ‘Mr. Thiess: What? .
‘‘The Court: The same ruling by the Court.
.. (Counsel continues reading :)
. *Mr. Thiess: Q. I refer you to patent No. 1,449;-
ove Defendants’ Exhibit 554, page 1, line 88, whieh
reads: | :
‘ ‘this additional heat being sufficient to compensate
586 = Abstract of Testimony on Merits, -
for the loss of heat due to vaporization from the |
vaporizing chamber,.loss due to radiation, etc.’’
790 ‘Does the word ‘‘vaporization’’ there used, mean
. Vapor formation? — 3
‘Mr.. Hall: The same objection and the same in-
struction to the witness.’ —_. ag Ss
‘‘The Court: Same ruling by the Court.
. (Counsel continues reading :)
‘“‘*Mr. Thiess: Q. I refer you again to this patent,
e 4, beginning at line 72, which reads as follows:
‘If, therefore, the temperature of the oil in the —
coil be allowed to rise materially beyond that of the
_ bulk oil in the vaporizing chamber, it is evident that
vaporization will occur in the coil -unless provision.
_ is made to prevent this, This vaporization may be pre-
_vented. by maintaining a certain predetermined pres-
sure on the oil in the heating coil or heating zone in
excess Of that of the balance of the system.””
‘Does the word “‘vaporization”’ as , om used indi-
cate or mean vapor formation? . :
‘Mr. Hall:. The same objection and the same in-
' struction to the witness.’ SS
‘*The Court: Same ruling by the Court.
(Counsel continues reading :) ike
791 .‘*‘Mr, Thiess: Q. I refer you to the statement
in your patent No. 1,655,603, at page 1, line 35, which
reads : pas meat ges
‘«The partial pressure effect.of the steam is to
permit a continual vaporization of the oil at a tem-
perature below its boiling point at the pressure em-
ployed.”’ Saige) Baeee |
‘Does the word ‘‘vaporization’’ as there used mean
vapor formation?
897 ‘Mr. Hall: The same objection and the same
- instruction to the witness.’. nth
‘*The Court: The same ruling by the Court. _
(Counsel continues reading :) -
***Mr. Thiess:_ Q. How was this vapor formation
effect by the partial pressure effected? ‘
‘Mr. Hall: The same objection and the same in-
struction to the witness.’ ; :
‘‘The Court: Same ruling. .
(Counsel continues reading :)
_ «Mr. Thiess: Q. I refer you again to page 1,
line 69, of this patent to the following statement: .
792
hts eg oa ‘ ; Seay
Deposition of Richard W. Hanna. 587 |
‘<The vapors of the lower boiling point oils being -
commingled with those of the higher boiling point oils -
assist the vaporization of such higher boiling point oils
by their partial pressure effect on the oil undergoing’
treatment.”’ ae :
‘Does the word ‘‘vaporization’’ as used therein indi-
_ cate vapor formation? eo oi
‘Mr. Hall: The same objection and the same in-
struction to the witness.’ — ie” 3
““The Court: Same ruling by the Court.
(Counsel continues reading:) -. 7 ee
‘¢*Mr. Thiess: Q. you know of any instance,
and can you refer me to such, in which you use the |
word ‘‘vaporization’’ to indicate or mean the libera- -
tion of vapors from liquid in a small heating tube
such as the ‘‘B’’ tubes of the Dubbs 1,392,629 patent?
‘Mr. Hall: The same objection and the same in-
struction to the witness. 4 |
‘“‘The Court: Same g by the Court.
{Counsel continues reading:) _
‘‘‘Mr. Thiess: Q. Under those circumstances
what caused you to believe that the instructions in the
Dubbs 1,392,629 patent in suit, calling for the heating
of the oil in the heating tubes to a cracking heat with- ©
. out substantial vaporization indicated an. operation in
793
} ,eraph, the second sentence: |
which the oil was to be heated without vapor lib-
898 eration in the ‘‘B’’ ‘tubes rather than without
vapor formation in the ‘*B’’ tubes, which latter
definition is the one which you have used in your pat-
ents that I have referred tof | eP.
‘Mr. Hall: The same objection and the same in-
struction to the witness.’
‘‘The Court: Same ruling.
(Counsel continues reading :)
‘¢¢Mr. Thiess: Q. Your patent attorney, Mr. Lyon,
understood that these processes were of the liquid.
phase type, for he refers to them as follows, in his
.
letter, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 539, page 2, the first para-
‘ «These interferences particularly relate to main-
taining a temperature and pressure relation that will —
hold the product in the liquid phase.”’
‘That is true, is it not?
‘Mr. Hall: The same objection and the same in-
_ struction to the witness.’ .
588
Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
“Mr. Von Holst : I don’t think that is at all subject
to the same ruling that you made. That is a letter
that they produced.
794
795
‘Mr. Haight: Well, the letter speaks for itself. .
‘Mr. Von Holst: Mr. Thiess had a perfect right
to cross-examine .the witness on it. |
‘The. Court: Yes, but the letter does speak for
itself. Mee a cas : —
‘‘Mr. Thiess: Yes. - .
. ‘*Mr. Von Holst: But the letter-speaks in a manner
in which the witness had not been aking.
‘*Mr. Thiess: Had not been s 2aking.
“The Court: ‘Well, whether it. does or not, if it
doe’, why, it is here and does speak differently. Read ©
‘your question.
(Counsel continues reading:) . 7
“**Mr. Thiess: Q. Your patent attorney, Mr. Lyon,
understood that these processes were of the liquid
hase type, for. he refers to them as follows, in his
etter, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 539, page 2, the first para-
graph, the second sentence: a
899 ‘‘*These interferences particularly relate to
‘maintaining a temperature-and pressure relation
_ that will hold the product in the liquid phase.’’
‘That is true,:is it not?’ ae
**The Court: Well, that doesn’t add anything. If -
the letter does say it, it does. eT ee
‘“‘Mr. Von Holst: It was a preliminary question,
your Honor. : .
‘Mr. Thiess: What was the ruling there? -
‘“‘The Court: I sustain the objection.
“Mr. ‘Von Holst: Your Honor has in mind that .
that question was preliminary to the next question 576.
‘The Court: Well, the next question may be all
right. The testimony of the witness as to what was in
the letter adds nothing to the letter itself. , |
‘*Mr. Thiess: Does the record show the same ob-
jection and the same instruction to the witness?
““Mr. Von Holst: Yes.
(Counsel continues reading :) 5 i
‘“**Mr. Thiess: Q.. As a man skilled in the art is
it not true that the word ‘‘vaporization’”’ as used in.
the art means ‘vapor formation? Nagi or
‘Mr. Hall: The same objection and the same in-
struction to the witness.’ i
- Deposition of Richard W. Hanna. 589.
‘“‘Mr. Haight: That is the same. question, your
Honor, that we put to Dr. Brown and that was ruled
on. . 7 !
‘‘The Court: Yes, objection will be sustained.
‘‘Mr. Von Holst: I beg your: pardon. I wish to
differ with Judge Haight. It is not the same question
that was-put to Mr. Brown. <a am
_ “My. Haight:° No, I think you are probably right.
‘‘Mr. Von Holst: Yes. oes |
| ‘Mr. Haight: Mr. Brown was asked about the
796 patent in suit. ; are Je
- . _ **Mr, Von Holst: The question to Mr. Brown was, .
‘Would it be proper to say that the process of the
Dubbs patent was one in which the oil was heated but
without substantial vaporization?’ =
900 ‘‘Mr. Haight: Yes, I will withdraw that. IT
think that is right. aes
‘‘Mr. Hall: The only proposition is they are taking
this fact witness and endeavoring to draw from him
an opinion as to the meaning of this term in the art.
Now, your Honor has said you can refer to dictionaries
and what not to find out the meaning of these terms,
_ and in the last analysis that is what you must decide
anyway.
The Court: Yes.
‘‘Mr..Von Holst: Certainly we, are entitled to. show
that a man skilled in the art used the word in its
ordinary sense. : ? | .
‘‘Mr. Hall: If you call him, possibly, but you are
not entitled to take our fact witness.
‘The Court: I think you have gone beyond the
bounds of proper cross examination. That question
was not gone into. on direct examination of this wit-
ness anyway as I recall it. = 7
797 «+‘*Mr. Thiess: But it was, your. Honor, in this sort
- of a way. He was asked about -why he was interested
in this Dubbs patent. He went to his patent. attorney.
He asked for advice. His patent attorney gave him
advice. He brought in orie letter. He didn’t bring in
a long report from the patent attorney. Apparently
there was’ none available, but we haven’t seen any-
thing of that kind. Now, in-the light of that le must
have considered this patent, and what we are trying
to ascertain is what was in his mind back in 1923 when -.
= e
590 |
798
Abstract of Testimony on Merits. ~
this license was taken out. I believe we are entitled to. -
search into those facts to find out what happened.
‘“‘The Court: Well, he stated in his direct examina-
tion that he relied on the advice of his attorney, and
I don’t se + that this is cross examination on that.
‘Mr. Thiess; Well, but he must have known What
his attorney told him. renee iia
“*The Court: Yes. re Rs ahs Soa
_ “*Mr.-Thiess: As to that particular phrase.
Fc t:_ The ghjection will be sustained. —__
(Counsel continnes aww th MER, |
** “Mr. Thiess: Q. In the sense in which you have
901 used the word ‘‘vaporization’’ in your patents re-
. ferred to, would you say as a man ski in the ©
art that in your-practice at the Standard Oil of_Cal-.
ifornia, where you heat the oil in a coil of restricted
_ diameter and. formed a substantial amount of vapors
in said coil so that the hydrocarbon traveled through
the coil as a foamy mass of mixed vapors and liquid, —
ou were practicing a process where the oil was heated
in that coil to a cracking temperature but without sub-
~_ stantial vaporization?’
“‘Mr. Hall: That is the same thing exactly.
‘The Court: It is the same thing. - :
.“‘Mr. Vort Holst: It is a question that is. directed
to identifying what they are trying to prove -is the
‘commercial process under the license with the process
of the patent. .How can whatever they did commer-
cially, your Honor, have any bearing unless it was the ©
'. process of the patent?
. 799
‘‘Mr. Hall: Well, that is a conclusion your Honor |
will have to. reach, whether’ it has any bearing or not. ”
' “*Mr. Von Holst: Yes, but we are entitled to find
out what sort of process it was that they were produc.
ing commercially under this patent. Was it the process |
in which there was vapor formed in the coil-or was it
the process in which there was no substantial vapor .
formed in the coil?
‘‘Mr. Hall: That is not what they:are asking him.
_“*Mr. Von Holst. Yes, it is. ; ee
**Mr. Hall:. That is just what your Honor told me
I would have to do, show what-the fact conditions were
in the coil and you would reach your own conclusion |
as to whether there was substantial vaporization or
not. y
Deposition of Richard W. Hanna. | 591
“Mr. Von Holst: That is not true, your Honor. |
‘‘The Court: Read it into the record under the rule. —
Lam not quite certain. On a good many of these ques-
800
tions I am not quite certain what I should do. There
is a good deal of discretion allowed in cross examina-
tion and sometimes departure from the matters con-
cerning. which the witness was questioned on direct. .
examination. Frequently I am bothered to determine -
how far I should allow the cross examination to go,
whether I should restrict it closely to. the matters that
were inqtired into on direct examination. In this I
am uncertain. I will let it be read in under the rule.
Mr. Von Holst: There was no answer anyway.
902 ‘‘Mr. Haight: There is no answer. :
-6Mr. Von Holst: I-will read what Mr. Hall said:
“The same objection and the same instruction to the
witness.’’ What we were arguing was whether the
question was proper or not. |
- The Court:, Oh, yes.
‘‘Mr. Von Holst: Your Honor holds that it is not? |
‘‘The Court:. Yes, I will so rule.
“Mr, Haight: What is your Honor’s ruling? —
‘‘The Court: I am holding as before at this time. oe
In Plaintiff’s Exhibit 538, and particularly the third
paragraph thereof, our attorney, Frederick S. Lyon
refers to his letter of July 3 (1924)..I have not been
able to locate that letter. I do not know what the con-
tents of it were.
The improvement of patent No. 1,488,325, Exhibit
537, over the patent No. 1,392,629, Exhibit 500, is feed-
ing the charging stock into the vapor column. I con-
- gidered this feature very important at, that time. ~.
The ‘Avon unit upon which we conducted these ex-
perimental runs has been recognized .as a typical
Dubbs. I have produced a book which coritains runs.
conducted in this still at Avon. Those runs were com-
mercial. runs for our education and to prove out the
statements that Mr. Halle had made and guar- -
903 anteed.. I do not recognize the names of the men
that are signed on the run sheets as employees of °.
. the Standard Oil Company of California:
803
In the operation of our stills of the Dubbs type, at
the Standard Oil of California on our regular runs,
on stills as exemplified in. Exhibit 550 our principal |
4
* 592 Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
- charge was gas oil but we undoubtedly also used fuel
oil. . ,
304 Drawing B-21601, DX 562, and A-21589, DX 563,
illustrate the No. 1 unit furnace that we built. In
DX 562, oil entered into the tube No. 1i4.and exited
at the tube No. 1. The place where the oil entered
was in the coolest part of the furnace. :
- 805 The first ronson this No. 1 unit were made under
. Our supervision, and the supervision of the Universal
Oil Products Co. aT,
808, I do not know that there was much knowledge of
_ Vapor’ phase: operations, and that the time element
was given any consideration. It was a very unde-
veloped art at that time, so we probably had no
particular opinion on the fact that they were operated
at high temperatures and short time factors.
810 Run No. 16 (DX 564) of the operation of the No. 1
. still at the Standard Oil of California, is the only
run that I could locate in which we operated that
‘still without flashing. ee
811 DX 564 constitutes our method of keeping a record ©
- of temperatures within the tubes, fuel consumption,
stack temperatures, flue temperatures and other de |
tails of operation of Run No. 16. - |
.812 These cards show that the run of the Dubbs unit
without flashing was from 7 a. m. on June 11 to 11
a.m. on June 15. It started on stream at 1 p. m. on.
June 11 and was taken off stream at 11 a. m. June
15, a total of approximately 87 hours. The charg-
904 ing stock used was ‘gas oil. I do not know what
813 the: level in the reaction chamber was. The char-
_ aeter of the residuum, its gravity, varied after we
got on stream. It went.as low as 5.4 gravity, but after
it was on uniform operation it ran about 8 gravity.
It was a merchantable fuel oil. We sold much_re-
siduum of about that quality and gravity. I do not
. know the B. S. and W.'of the residuum. That would
not entirely determine its merchantability.
There is a big market for so-called Dubbs fuel oil
_¢ here on the Pacific Coast which will permit up to 6 or
814 8 per cent floéculent carbon, so that this had com-
mercial uses, if we wanted to sell it straight.
In Run No. 16, we used the apparatus as diagram-
Deposition of Richard W. Hanna, - 593
- matically illustrated in PX 550, excluding the part
‘ showing the flashing operation. — ,
At the time I negotiated with Mr. Halle for the
license agreement I was conversant in a general way
‘with the litigation which was pending between the
| ‘Universal Oil Products Company and the Standard
- 815 Oil of Indiana.on the J. A. Dubbs patent No. 1,123,502.
. I recommended to the officers of my company to
negotiate with Universal Oil Products Company and
to accept the terms of the 1931 contract entirely be-
cause of business consideration to save my company
money. It was purely. based on saving money and
the basis of what we anticipated saving m royalties
was made up by projecting our operations, but whether
we were increasing or not increasing our capacity the ©
question of getting what we had in the form of a paid-
up license and saving money would have-been the
deciding influence in any event. It was all based on
what we were going te spend and what we thought
905 we were going to get it for. — ‘ a
816 . This flashing system which has been referred .
~~ to, and'which is’shown in PX 550 was developed prior -
to the time that we entered into our original agree-
ment with the Universal Oil Products Company. We
started very soon to use this flash system on No. 1
Dubbs nnit.
817 Increased yield was the advantage 6f this flashing .
system. The use of flashing affected our residuum.
818 in that it lowered the gravity. On the general output
‘of coke I do not think the flashing system had any .
effect. : mt }
906 - Run No. 41 (DX 565) is typical of our so-called
} flashing operation as of that date. We are operat-
ing this flashing system in substantially the same way .
‘vy. DX 565 constitutes the record of Run No. 41.
290 This run started 3:15 p. m. September 10 and went
until\ 2:15 ‘a. m. on-September 20, 1926. It came on —
-- stream at 10 p. m. September 10, and went off stream
- 821 at 2:15 September 20. The cards do not give the
level of the oil in the reaction chamber. T think it
would have been the same as the level in the operation
as exemplified by Run No. 16.. The charge in this
Run 41 was gas oil. |
The: regular operating schedule. of 600 hours was —
a Abstract of Testimony on Merits. :
- subsequent to this time because these runs are not for .
that length of time. These 600-hour runs were om
undoubtedly made on the flashing operation.
822 In the runs that we-conducted on the flashing, as
exem — on PX 550, we used a horizontal reaction
cham ‘Thereafter we used vertical reaction cham-
asa satis. ;
**Q.. In this flashing operation you reduced the .
a from your operating pressure to’ A lower
pressure so as to cause the formation of vapors -in
your tar éxpansion tower: Is that correct?
**A. §So as to distill by the residual heat the lighter
‘fractions contained in. the cracked residuum.
“‘Q. In other words, you would get vapors formed
in there that would go off as a result of the residual
heat: Is that right? ~~
‘‘A. Vaporization would take place as a result of
— the pressure and realizing ‘the residual
t.’’
_ § 907 . Phe. temperature drop which occurred in the
- tar expansion chamber was due to vaporization of
- the liquid that was expanded in those operations. This
drop in temperature was undoubtedly due to. the fact
that. the heat was consumed in ‘the latent heat of
vaporization. As far as I know, no sracking oceurred
in this tar expansion chamber.
‘At the time of negotiating our Licdnee under the
Universal Oil Products Co’s. patents, we \were advised
and proved to our satisfaction that the Dubbs process °
would produce. good yields of commiercialh gasoline. .
We p Renee and proved to our satisfaction that the
deposition of carbon in the tubes was a minimum.
‘The records will show that in the operation at\Mar-
tinez which we witnessed, there was considerable. ‘coke
ane og At the same time, nobody advised ns ‘of
— relative to making commercial residuum con-
; taining ess than 1 per cent of B. S: in this Dubbs unit, \
but we were -permitted to see it and draw our own
conclusions. \
.. flashing operation which was introduced in the \
ration of the Dubbs process by the Standard Oil \,
' California was_ generally adopted throughout the :
couiatiey. during that period, just ee our 1925
demonstration of it. |
| / ;
Testimony of Macauley Carter. : 95
I do not sonal of even making one run of the so-
. Called non-residuum Dubbs: operation, altliough we
-,might have made one. We were not interested in the
non-residuum operation because we had a market for’
‘all operation.
908 MACAULEY CARTER, Lake Forest, Ilinois:
Direct Examination by Mr. Haight.
839 . I have been assistant secretary of the Universal Oil
Products Company since 1931 and I have custody of
_ the company records.
PX 569 is an agreement between the Universal Oil |
Products Company and the Mid-Continent Petroleum
841 Corporation dated January 1st, 1936. PX 570 is a sup-
— agreement, and PX 571 is a letter of cancel-
tion of the license contract written by the Mid-Con-
oe Corporation by Mr. France dated August 31,
Abstract of PX 569:' Under date of January 1, 1936 .
- Universal. licenses Mid-Continent to operate several
cracking units at Tulsa, Oklahoma under more than
400 Universal patents (including the patents in suit.)
- Mid-Continent agrees to pay royalties on the through-
put at specified rates jae |
royalties. Universal agrees to hold Mid-Continent
harmless against any charge of infringement - made
by others on ‘account of Mid- vane 8 operations
under ‘the license.
Abstract of PX 570: This is “an agreement dated :
eintid, 1, 1936 between (1) Mid-Continent, (2) the
Universal Oil Products. Company, a Delaware
corporation, and (3) Universal Oil Products Company,
litigation between Universal: (South Dakota) and Mid-
Continent. Universal (South Dakota) and Universal
(Delaware) release Mid-Continent from all claims of
past -infringement. Universal (Delaware) and Mid-
(PX 569, above) which shall. be cancellable at any .
. | time after thirty days, provided Mid-Continent is not —
. _ then in default and shall have made full payment of
fuel oil and thought that was the most economical over-
with 8 ed minimum .
uth Dakota corporation. It recites ee atent — |
-. Continent agree to enter into a.license agreement’
596 Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
the $1,000,000 recited below. After such a cancellation
Universal (Delaware) and Universal (South Dakota)
shall have the right to assert their cracking patents
against Mid-Continent for its subsequent cracking
operations.
909 id-Continent agrees to pay Universal (Dela-
ware) in addition to its obligations ander PX 569,
the sum of One Million dollars, one-fourth of which
is to be paid on the execution of PX 569, and the re-
mainder in specified installments.
Mid-Continent releases Universal (South Dakota)
and Universal (Delaware) as well.as their licensees,
—_ we Sd claim of infri t under Mid-Continent
tents aa specified itations. Uni-
vena: ey ve given the right to sue, for its
own benefit, for infringement of any of Mid-Continent’s .
sProraon patent rights, ebject to specified limitations ;
n is made for the termination of the litiga-
Mom pences between Universal. (South Dakota). and
Mid-Continent.
Abstract of PX 571: Under date of August 31,
1938, Mid-Continent, prrresat to the t of cancella- ,
tion we ony by PX 570, gives notice to Universal (the .
p laintiff) of its cancellation of the license agreement,
ee X 569, > ta Royebty, Mhen by Wabvereel ws des
Change in Royalty Rates nive e t
change in royalty rates was made in 1934. The royalty
844 was then reduced from fifteen to ten cents a barrel
throughput. The reason for this change was that the
competitive situation in 1934 caused Universal to be-
lieve that it was necessary to reduce its royalties -in
order to maintain and increase business.
The next change was made effective October 1st,
1938. At this time Universal that with the
expiration of the Dubbs — , it might be
845 faced with the situation that cnlecs time, royalties were
reduced some of Universal’s ~ omg gy be lost. - °*
_ This Dubbs patent expired in October 1
910 Cross-Ezamination by Mr. Thiess.
846 I was in sales work with Universal prior to the time
that I became assistant secretary. contacted our
* October 4, 1988 is the date of expiration of the Dubbs patent in sult,
Testimony of Macauley. Carter. ". @
licensees and, of course, prospects for the process. 1
do not recall that I ever contacted whe © id-Continent |
p *
Prher patents besides the 629 patent thiat I have fe,
ferred to. I don’t kiiow of my own know but I
Gasoline Products Company at the time Wes tor the
848 celled in accordance with PX 571. Universal sued the
Mid-Continent after that. That suit was also discon-
tinued. I do not know — it was discontinued.
On October the Ist, 1938 we reduced our license fee
from 10 to 5 cents. In December 1937 Universal had
i a license from The Texas Com y to license
j nee in
-eoatinnane of the second suit against the Mid-Conti- —
nen . ‘
911 The f wing exhibits, all of which’ were for-
; merly exhibits in the Root case, were offered in
evidence : |
851 PX 572. Statement of royalties received year by
eee from the Shell group and Standard Oil of Cali-
ornia from 1922 to December 31, 1930. .
- Abstract: .The grand total of royalties from these
two licensees, up to December 31, 1930, was $33,576,- -
852 PX 573. Statement of the royalties received f rom
licensees other than Shell and the Standard Oil Com-
of California group from 1922 to December 31, —
‘ Abetract : Thirty-seven domestic and eleven foreign
licensees are listed. Royalty payments up to Decem-
ber 31, 1930 aggregation. $16,430,492.04.
Shell Company and the. Standard Oil Company of
California in the amount of one quarter of the royalties
_/ $98 Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
Abstract: “The amount credited to the Shell Com-
y was $2,942,077.65 and to the Standard. Company
501) 026.51. Total: $3,533,104.16.
853 PX 5751. Stipulation entered irito in the Root case
in lieu of. the various license agreements. .
Abstract: This exhibit contains:a list of the various
. licenses granted by Universal Oil Products Company
_ prior. to December 31, 1929. The various patents and
. te under which each license Was granted are —
*
| 912 ) BERNARD G. LENSKE, Oak Park, Illinois:
Direct Examination by M r. Haight.
853 Lam compt roller.of the Universal Oil Products Com-
_ pany and I have control of tlie journal of the Universal
Qil Products Company. Journal Voucher No. 1019,
PX. 576, is'a record of the receipt of $10,000,000 in
‘January 1931 from the Shell Union Qil Corporation
and the Standard Oil Company of California. Note:
_ The purpose of this voucher is to show that $10,000 ote:
_was paid by the Shell and Standard of Sagem ep
—- ies for a paid +. license. $3,000,000 was paid by .
_ Standard (Hanna,
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.