Transcript of Record — Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co
Supreme Court brief1944
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Aine
Vol. Ill
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD
- , (Pages 1023 to 1504)
. \-
=
_ Supreme Court of the United States
_ OCTOBER TERM, 1943
a No. 392 <
UNIVERSAL OLL PRODUC ES COMPANY.
i. PETITIONER,
vs,
GLOBE OIL & REFINING COMPANY
N yw RIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE U ‘NITED ‘STATES CIRC C {T COURT
OF AP PFAIS FOR THE SEVENTH CHnC' v IT
a
_ PEYITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 1943.
_ CERTIORARI GRANTED NOVEMBER 15. 1913.
VOL. III pp. 1023 to 1504.
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD
® .
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OcropEr Term,” A. e ¥ 1942.
-
° y4 ~4 e
a. a
$e
UNIVERSAL OIL ‘PRODU CTS COMP ANY,
Petitioner,
e US:
GLOBE OIL & REFINING COMPANY,
: Re sponde nt.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATESACIRCHIT COURF-oF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCULE—
* . on - i .
—
A
|
*
-
I= THE
Supreme Court of the United States
Ocroszs Tzem, A. D. 1942.
No. 392
+
UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY, .
Bry Petitioner,
vs. :
GLOBE OIL & REFINING COMPANY.
2 Respondent.
. OF i OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CISCUIT COURT OF
k APPEALS FOR.THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
traces eee
Index ‘to proceedings i in U.S. District nek: wets 4
Clerk’s Certificate to Volume 1 of printed record of
proceedings in U.S. District. Court... 0. 6ii eee 550a ~
Clerk’s Certificate to Volume 2.of printed record of
| proceedings i in U. S. District Court....... eer 86
Clerk’s Certificate to Volume 3 of: printed record of
proceedings in U. 8. District Court................ 1504
Clerk’s Certificate to Volume 4 -of printed record of
- proceedings in U. S. District Court..... yaks ....1994
, Clerk’s Certificate to Volume ‘5 of printed record of ~
proceedings in U. S. District Court........ ‘<vauslea 2494
Clerk’s Certificate to Volume 6 of printed record of
proceedings i in U.S. District Court. ...... Poorer . .3084a
Clerk’s Certificate to Volume 7 ‘of printed record ; oe
“: procedings im U. , S District Court... PEACH Tore 3569
Index to proceedings i in U. Ss. Court, of Appeals: eee
ie a BORE LOR ORR TOES | ae
Appearance for iain filed pra 14, 1942.:: ..3572
Appearance for Appellee, filed Jan. 19, 1942:.... 3573
“Order taking cause under advisement, entered.
ast die ee oh CE TE ee
Opinion by Evans, J., filed June » 30, ee . 3015"
-. Judgment affirming, entered June 30, | ey: . 3585
Reference to issuance of Mandate.....+......... 3585 |
Clerk’s Certificate ...... ideas Sas Srreerrrree 3587
*.,
‘@
* VOL. tl pp. 1023 to 1503.
| TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD ~
at;
: ay | i the be
Unit Sates Cirruit our ne |
For the Sebent Circuit.
No. 7912
UNIVERSAL ‘OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY,
ae Appellant, —
vs.
’ GLOBE OIL & REFINING COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
iS estetdiieeenttiaeemetame ent
ee cman ee
-\ ppeal from the District Court of the United States for the
Northern District: of Illinois, Eastern Division.
THE GUNTHORP. WARREN PRINTING COMPANY, 210 WEST JACKSON, CrUCAGO
. DOCKETED JAN. 14, 1942. _
TRANSCRIPT FILED APRII 2, 1942.
PRINTED RECORD. °
ree. ee
Gaited States Circuit Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit . \
UNIVERSAL OIL, PRODUCTS COMPANY,
aa,
vs.
- GLOBE OIL & REFINING COMPANY,
_Delendent-Aypeitce
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
.
a
‘
/
.
e°
‘
7.
.
e-
.
Certificate of ‘counsel as.to abstract of record, We Pere jo Se
Docket Entries «....... PETER EDS Ae RIGO Oe ere ak Tas
Bill of Complaint, filed Salty 22, 1931. i Onnernes e
Statement of stipulation re Winkler:Kock bes Co.. 23
Answer, filed Mar. 2; 1982... 01. -geeyersias ee
| ; ‘Statement of stipulation re Substitution of parties.
plaintiff, OW ec icys PER cRCudu chen Whas oe errors fF
Amendment to Answer, filed May 11, 1932...........: 38
ales nance oho a a 39
“EXCERPTS FROM EVIDENCE ON
RES ADJUDICATA ISSUE.
‘Piamerirr’ s WITNESSES.
Testimony of: ‘S Fae Pe 7
Dunham, Robert J., Sr....... ibbwde ha ehakes ccc oe
Hamilton, David Phillip... ...............0...... 40°
Heil, Henry F............ veer re. aPC er iter ets . 42
Koch, Fred C.............. VOMEARUAci eka eeeny ee
Lamprecht, William Henry, II......... elinres. me
. Stipulation re. expenditures, ete.......... cephinhoans-
. Derenpant’s WITNEaS.
‘ ‘Testimony of : POC ed
O'Shaughnessy, I. isis Gere Stat cae 52
. Motion to dismiss siti and amendments on the.
_ ground of unclean hands, filed Jan. 4, , » OT
-_ Vol, pp. 1 to 580; Wol. IZ, pp. 551 to 1088; Vol. 1083 to 1503;
Vol. IV. pp. 1806 to 1983; Vol. 'V, pp. 1995 to 2483; Vol. "pp. 2496 to 3084;
Vol. WEE, pp. 3085 to 3567.
ABSTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS ON MOTION TO
DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR UNCLEAN HANDS.
. Biatement by Mr. Von Holst... peesbseekiewes bees 58
Affidavit of J. Bernhard Thiess (Read my: ness eeacds 58
; Colloquy Sites ep dwatid aileceseee¥ esas siedhecse Pore 62
ee Answer, filed Jan. 5, cree ee @&
Petition for Subpoena Duces Tecum to meme, filed |
PM By Ta had a's caviccccceceheesconvesedetonuces 71
Petition for Subpoena Duces Tecum to Plaintiff, filed _—_.
* Jan. 17, 1938....... aeekeacdiebeeane cwigeessons a . o
Stipulation re hearings on Subpoenas...... aivenecte oon. :
Interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff, filed Jan. 14,
AE Gah es Neto n vn ew AG PANG Keane gs es cr seneeesas! 00
Stipulation re. hearing on Interrogatories.......... <a
Plaintiff’s Answers to Interrogatories............... 80
Amendnient to Answer, filed Feb. 9, 1938.2........... 81
Motion of Defendant to produce records, filed June 2,
BE skh db os op SUURAUES 64 eRe REECE AC CODE Cap ctceess 81
Petition for Subpoena panes: ‘Tecum to’ Bey ty filed June
cal RT EO ee 83
" it, . : r er \
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE ON ISSUE OF *'
-. UNCLEAN HANDS.
Colloquy ........ aihunuekeke-s paseuuceesécckec Aen
- DerenDANT’s WITNESSES.”
- Testimony of: fee Sake
MI ND aco ccdesciccssss vawns jumis sags . «290
MUNN, MINED Cac’. nono csccesceessecees ore ae
Brunow, G. Hai, ...6..c.ecsese seiticoete acess 108
Danciger, ‘Joseph ..... PE a a eee ve 100
Dearborn, ee a oF bs nano __ PRS r 182 -
Vol. I,-pp. 1 to 860; Vol. £ S51 to 1088; Vol pp. 1083-to 1503;
Vol. IV. TV, DP. 1808 to 1993; ¥ to 2483; Vol. PD. 2496 to 3004;
‘Val. VIZ, pp. 3085 to 3567
i el .
on eee
¥ | sacle a AS"
OD ccivcsshndieannodedar ae eer 168.
et, We Gus ince. windinesctneaba ehnme abies 105
Murray, R. L. ie os PPR ee Pee Me -ow Parnes TT TTT 176
Bingolaky, B.-J........0.2.ccsseeeecteereceeeees 85
Stratford, William Malcolm . (Deposition of)... 6:4: 243
_ Thompson, Lloyd H...... Skea cket csi binnnee ot 170 -
Wannack, Otto ............ eceesevenss Scescecee Mae
ot a, Se Seeuien’ Views anata 123
WHER, G.Ben se cccseedecczssvccscsevicssoeses AB
| PLaintirr’s WITNESSES.
Testimony of: | he ie
Behrens W. Meredith. saeen ace 3 praatailes yer:
Dubbs, Carbon P....... pactagiensbencvbcansuans 391
Dunham, Robert J., Sr........... ka tumakessace 440.
oe RR Be Dos ccacsses Sas aouaiens a keweess ... 376
2 I I hn cs acckideccduccccesice 456
: . Norbury, Dr. Frank Garn............ git teeteee 451 |
- Documentary Evidence ............... jivckinaneten 267
Opinion on Uriclean 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................. 469
Amendment to Answer, filed Jan. 4, 1940..... erry ae 470
Certificate of Counsel to Abstract of Testimony. on:
mete ayer yee aweaeedcecacectes petkaedeensas 470
ABSTRACT OF TESTIMONY ON MERITS. . ©
Stipulation Oe OD MIR’ nance cacevesecddeches 471
Plaintiff’s Exhibit A—-Flow Sheet of Defendant’s |
process for cracking petroleum. Aecncenwan voc 498
Plaintiff’s Exhibit B—Analysis Sheet......... oa Se
_ Plaintiff’s Exhibit C—Analysis Sheet,.......... 478
Stipulation as to certain documents.............. ... 480
Yel. Ev, vp. 1608 to 8ag, Vol PDP. 1998 to 2463, Vol. Vi, pp. 2496 to 3004,"
PS
iv’
P
-Prarmerire’s Wrrwesses.
- Testimony of : ? ’ a :
Brown, Dr. rge Granger..............--634, 1363
Carter, Macnaley 2. 6...2..cccsccscccsccseccres SOG
Hanna, Richard W. (Deposition of)............ “, 553
Healy, Francis J......... rr eSenee PerTrire . 1500
ME: Ea Elec essivcs ceseedepsessceceses Freer soos
_ Lenske, Bernard G..... chien dclseanéntatstse 598
Mechling, Dean G.......... IE scskeanuaal 1349
‘Moore, Louis C. (Deposition rere esdenes 485
Perdew, W. E. (Deposition of)......:.........-. 629
" Pyzel, Daniel (Deposition of)......... adeskbatus 505
Reid, William E. ( Deposition Pe coceveces SOE
Tabor, George H........ asin Jeteeccncecs ers le
Diskin’ . Wrrstesces.
Testimony of:
- Backus, Lon E. ( Deposition of)........ jaudaske ~ 830
* Bailey, A. S...... ec cegaccceqecccceccccce coeccs AO
Behimer, Otto-........... bass kubesadnaspcacdsa 868
Cady, Dr. H. P..... sind Canes eeanpesiaceantenn . 788
Detwiler, James G......... ig edie dane ‘spbnsante 1004
De Florenz, Luis (Deposition of ) seasasapeeendnen 846
Donaldson, William T...+.............. ee ia
Bde, Hofttey Mos. ...<.202000- > pgaavaedanun . 816
SG, EN Whe cbs ccssccncuccccces eS
Holmes, Ralph €...............20000: wiedesssse ae
_ Hooker, Forney G..............-. prsbvacKens .. 809
Mackenzie, Kenneth G..... ses seessbbnees is ead 1023
McCarthy, John S............ Gieeiedil seed ee . 1054
Reiman, Dr. Clarence K......... scl saawaa «... 4174
Schneider, Ben R............. éuukas awe Coa 1049
Smith, Harris A.:.............. ex cea Cap déssn ee
ne ee SPELT EE ETP OLEe El cP cca pee ce
Agreed Statement as fo Introdyction of Exhibits. TOT. 1505
vol Ey. vo. 108 bled ta Tap 1998 to 2468) Wel. VE, pp. te soee:
v
+ PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS.
a
“< <<a . Mi F : ‘Rapreboced ta in Beckof
A—Correspondence (3 letters) between
Dearborn and Behimer............ 1. 230°
- B—Thiess Agreement, Nov. 10, 1935, SE eae
Re ME Sa ccs cadsscctnesboves 1 232 4 1505
1—Copy of tentative settlement ae §...
ment—U. O. P. and Danciger....... 1 385.
2—Letter, March 2, 1938, Wannack to a
DE cuahéuasdecnphtads cache oes en 1 262 :
4—Letter, March 29, 1938 Dubbs to :
Dc cacosadanokaasbeane enue 1/-903. ”
5—Letter, Dec. 20, 1932, Behimer
EY 5 iF eohatdeaaded coe snaks “1° 281°”
6—Letter, Jan. 14, 1927, Scullin eae,
Behimer ..,...... re adenine wabeke 1. 333
7—Letter, June 20, 1917, Detwiler to’ ape
Manley (see DX: 759)......-.-.02-. 1 825
8—Letter, Aug. 10, 1917, amet to
CE svisvatedesatcns pecedss'se ‘oi. BB ©
ae . | 2 943
9—Letter, Aug. 13, 1917, Behimer ‘to :
ee ok ys fas ous eeeyeees 1. 326
| 2 944
10—Letter, Aug. 10, 1917, Behimer to1 326
Manley ........ one Dhankeksbis Wine 2 906°
11—Copy of. Behren ’s memorandum on
Keystone Driller case and Ringol-
sky’s memo to Behrens............ 1 389 -
VoL 1 to 550; Wol. 851 to 1022; Wo 1083 to 1503;
Vol. TV. sn) 1308 te 1903: Von W pp. 1908" sia Vi, Bp. 2495 2495 to 3004;
Vol. VIZ, pp. 3085 to 3567.
a
12—Letter of resignation, Dec. 12, _
Wannack to Dubbs ............ 0... 1 402
13—Letter, Sept. 16, 1931, Wannack to }
Walter (Hermsdorf) Ry eee ee 1 437
80-—License Agreement, Feb. 21, 1930,
between Winkler-Koch Engineering
. Co. and Globe Oil and maining Co.
ert is Per Preory 1 43
83—Letter, May 1927, Perdew to Halle 1 630
116—-Letter, Feb. 26, 1929, Jehle to
O’Shaughnessy igabesantadeseene wea 54
120—Letter, Jan. 2% 1932,°W. P. Z.
German to refiners in Winkler- Koch
Patent Co. Defense Fund .......... 1 55
500—Dubbs Patent 1,392,629.......... 2 652 7 3086
501—Certified. copy of File Wrapper of
, Dubbs patent 1,392,629 (does not in-
ed “clude reference patents, See DX 813) 2 652 4 1508
502—Kgloff Patent 1,537, 593 ......46. 2 -666 7 3094
503—Certified Copy of File Wrapper
of Egloff patent 1,537,593 (does not
include sre patents, See DX
814) ...... acihee ssh iawiaake bh see
504—-Diagram of Burton shee] still...: 1 486 4 1697
505A—Diagram of Burton. Clark pe
—
—_
7)
=~
9
WEE peach dhs sephcapcossccenavss Sen 1 489 4 1699
506—Diagram of Fig. 2 of Trumble
“Patent. 1,281,884 .......... 05... ee 4 1701
507—Diagram of Fig. 1- of Halloran 4
Patent 1,765,976 .........- 0.000400. 4 1703
Vol %, pp. 1 te 850; Vol 1%, pp. 861 to 3 PP. 1083 to 1503;
Vol. FV, por 1505 to 1999; Wol. Ve pp. 1998 to 9468, Wel. VE, op. Dene ce Deets
Vol. VEZ, pp. 3085 to 3567. ’ .
i
508—Stipulated flow diagram of De-
fendant’s operation at Lament, Illi-
Dubbs patent 1,392,629 ....:....,.. 2 652 4 1707 .
510—Drawing of Egloff patent 1,537,593 2 666 4 1709
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 Kansas City Testing Lab-
ERE Ae Aten, AE AEE 1 490 4 1711
514—Burton Patent 1,049,667... oe YY. 7.9 3150
. 515—Trade Standards in the Pump In- |
dustry—fiyleaf and p.6............ 1. 504 4 1713
_ 516—Worthington Pump & Machinery
_ Co. catalog—fiyleaf and pp. 14, 15, 16
17, 28, 29, 44 and 45 peseteddesseccos 1 5S0t 4 1717
517—Distillation samples of petrolecm 2 645 4
518—Cracking samples of petroleum... 2 652
519—Perspective flow diagram of Dubbs - 507
unit #2 at Independetice; Kansas. . 688 4 1727 |
520—Letter, Oct. 6, 1919, Pyzel to Van .
der Gracht, unsi@fd ...........:.. 1 510 4 1729
521A—Agfeement between U. O. P. pes
Boxana, dated Dec. 12, 1919........ "4 1734
. 521B—Agreement between U. O. P. and
_ Roxana, dated Dec. 22, 1919........ 4 1737
vol Fv vp Ste sy vol. W: Bp. *ibes ty 2482, Vol. Wi, pp. 2406 to. S004:
viii. | q
521C—Abstract of agreement between
U.0. P. and DeBataafsche Pet. Co.,
dated March 31, 1925 -.."........0.00 1 524 4 1742.
522—Two drawings of Dubbs #1 unit | a
WEE 6 vcd cxaewessidensicicns ‘1. 512 471745
523-—Flow sheet of Roxana- Dubbs unit - 3 eet
Nichi cckan cards chiodawe dd ows 1 513 4 1755
524—Flow chart of Debit #2. 514 | |
7 ee 5 692 4 1757
. 532—Halloran and — Patent
51,765,976 ........ SE eoeere Oe 7 3486
533—Excerpt from letter, Hanna to
"Mason and Halloran, Oct. 4, 1923... 2 . 555
534—Abstract of letter, Hamilton to
Hanna, Sept. 8, 1923........... 1. 2 555
535—Letter, Hamilton to Hanna, Oct. 1,
ech ra ee. 2 555° 4 1759 -
536—Colored flow diagram’ of Rich-
mond still referred to in PX 535.... 2° 556-4. 1761
. 537—Dubbs Patent 1,488,325 ......... ' 7 3416
538—Letter, Adams to Hanna, July 8, ax ite oe
BOD Nise ee dence seedeth iavcgesesman 2 5596 «364 «1763
: 539—Exeerpt from letter, Lyon to |
age June 12, 1924.00, 6.:.5.05. 2 556
540— Abstract of license agreement,
Aug. 15, 1924, between U. O. r and
~ Standard Oil Co. (Calif.) .......... 2 557
541—Abstract of agreement between
Uv. O. P. and Standard Oil of Califor-
nia, re Test and Escrow............ 2 557
“oak tn ce Vol. IZ, pp. 551 to 108%: Wol. IIZ, pp. 1083 to 1503;
2493; Vol... Vi, pp. 9495 to 3084;
Vol. IV, pp. 1806 to 1983; Vol: V, si ieigecuniis
a ee
7
; estimony
: * Vel. Page Vel. Page
542—Abstract of supplemental License |
Agreement .between U. O. P: and
‘Standard, Aug. 15, 1924 ............ 2 558
543—Abstract of agreement, re Sale
of Inventions of Standard to U'O.P.2. 558
544—Abstract of letter, Halle to Stand-
ard Oil, Aug. 15, 1924, re. Scope of
BND occ cu Sk cha hacde¥e Kein eis 2 . 558
‘545—Abstract of letter, Halle to Stand-
ard Oil, Aug. 15, 1924—excluding cer- |
_ tain charging stock from royalty.. 9 558
-546—Abstract of letter, Halle, U. 0. es
to Standard—April 27, 1925....... 2 558
* §47—Abstract of letter, Halle, U. O. P.
to Standard—April 30, 1925 ......... 2 © 558
' §48—Abstract of letter, Halle, U. O. P. |
to Standard—March 1, 1926 :....... 2 558
549 Abstract of letter, Halle, U. O. P. :
_ to Standard—Jan. 29,-1929 . .. 2 559
550—Flow diagram of Dubbs dishing
operation (Unit No. 1), Standard of
i Pre eee 2 559 4 1765
551A—Photographs of Dubbs Unit No. | ‘
551B 1, Standard of California . oe 2 559 - 4 1767
552—Excerpts from Certified copy of
File Wrapper of Halloran & Strout
application, Serial No. 176,990 (now
Patent 2,070,124) ....... PRP ree 2 560 4 1771
566—Notice of Suit filed Jan. 26, 1926, . .
"Ely Se a GS oo ca axdiecsacce a, 4 1789
Vol %, pp. 1 to 660; Vol. 11, pp. 561 to 1002; Vol. III pp. 1093 to 1603;
PP.
TV, pp. 1808 to 1983; Vol. ¥, DD. 1996 to 46a, Vol. DP. 2496 to 3084;
3085 to 8567. : eye
567—Notice of commencement of action, :
of Jan. 28, 1926, U. O. P. v. Standard
Oil (of Ind.) - Ge aveeakeeeensabed ees Bis 4 1790.
568—Notice of suit filed April 11, 1990, eer
U. O. P. v. Standard of N. J....2.... “ & N91
569-—Abstract of license eee be-
' tween U. O. P. and Mid- Continent, .
Gated Jan. 1, 1996 2.0.05 .5...cccccc. 2 595 ~
570—Abstract of agreement, dated Jat.
_1, 1936, between U. O. P. and Mid- |
Continent, giving right to cancel ... 2 595
571—Abstract of Jetter of ilaieiie
Mid- Continent to Universal, Aug. 31,
er ee PC ae ee 2 596
- 572--Abstract of statement of Royalties .
_ from 1922 to 1930 from Shell and
rer renee are pe 2 597
573—Abstract of tabenndal of Royal-
. ties from other than Shell and Stand-
UD. 6000445460040 ccadeak cass eseces 2. 597
_574—Abstract of statement of monies
~ paid to Shell and Standard by wayof —
rebate on purchase of patents'......2 597
575—Abstract of stipulation in U. O..P. |
v. Root, re Licensees of U.O.P..... 2 598
576—Journal entry of payment for paid
"up mer by Shelt and Standard of
) aes Caled eevee eee eat ede ccc 2 -598
577—Simplified rm sheet of Roxana -— . .
No. 1 at Dubbs Still .. 2.2.2.0... 2 600 4. 1793.
Vol. x, 1 to 550; Vol. IZ," pp. 551 to 1088; Vol. PP. 1023 to 1503;
Vol. EV, Pp. 1905 00 18ea, Vol. W. pp. 1008 to 0400) Vol PP. 9495 to 3084;
Vol. VIZ, pp. 8085 to 3567. agit
xi
fin in Book of
* Vel. Page Vel. Page
579A—Drawing 621 F of Dubbs unit
_ No. 1 at Roxana ..... phdowseeiuids 2 604° 4 1795
_ 579B—Drawing 690 F of Dubbs. unit
oe a 2 604 4 1797
'579C—Drawing 691 F of ‘Dubbs unit
mO/1 at Bemame ..i..:.....00050 2 604 4: 1799
580—Drawing 756 F of. Dubbs N o. 2 at
Me od dbcs ccd ss A a ee 2 606 4 1801
580A—Drawing 862 F of Dubbs No. 2 .
| RS er rer fer re 2 606. 4 1803
- 9§80B—Drawing 755 I of Dubbs No. 2 ‘ a
Ss | SO er rer are 2 606 4 1805
: 5800-—Drawing 933 G of Dubbs No. 2 :
ME SAKb Cd okAS Ale Nadne snk <a 2 606° 4 1807
580D—Drawing 867 F of Dubbs No.2 fms. 3
I 8.6 kdvivadessssenasccens 2 606 4 1809
580E—Drawing 866 F of Dubbs No. 2 =
eR aie | ‘2 606 4 1811
580F—Drawing 863 F ‘of Dubbs No. 2
ID Ka dnc cixadeas icacasi. 2 606 4 1813
581—Model of Standard 500 bbl. Dubbs — ‘
MM Ahh ina n ah pie Canes ats ee ere Te 2 608
: "693 |
582—Tabulation of standard Dubbs gf
units constructed, showing - ‘gravity
feed units ued from forced -
I Gane cc cise cs edie in, 2 613 4 1814
| 583—Summary of Run. 90, Unit #2,
Roxana, Arkansas City ....:...... ' 614
mi — ae
Page Vel. Page
584—Summary of Run #4B of aa me.
=e at Arkansas City ............. 2.° 689 4 1817.
585—Summary of two Runs on ae oan
#1 and #2 at Waite-Phillips Co. .. 615 4 1818
586—Schedule of number of licensees of
- U.O. P. and their thruput : from 1922
OD Se setve cs cakaps exercasistnes« 2 615 4 1818
587—Dubbs Licensees, number of units
of each, and cost thereof for stills
built and under construction as of’
Boa! 31, 1989... 0ccciss Sieucsanne 2. 615 4 1820 -
-. §97—-Twenty run sheets for No ‘2. |
Dubbs unit of Independence opera-
tion made for Western ihefiners Com-
EE 5 we cae ndbaehagenseeeneakass “2 #687 4° 1823
598 -Flow diagram of Defendant’s op- |
eration, with additional operating
conditions in red, taken fromthe Root __ .
ee ny me 2 695 4 1863
636—Letter, May 5, 1917, adnate to | ;
‘Holmes, re Cost of Hall installation 2 1046-.-
637—Bayonne Hall operation, account-
ants’ tabulation of preducts. Nov. 2 976
22, 1916 to June 1, 1917 .....:.../..°3 1046 4 1865
638—Patents filed. by Texas’ Co. in _
1917-18:
‘Manley 1,428,338*.......5........ 7- 3382
OT” 2 7 3388
Manley 1,462,143 ................ , 7 3410
Manley 1600.02 ..........5..... : 7 .3456
Vol I, pp. 1 to 580; Vol. IZ, pp. 551 to 1082; Vol. PP. 1083 to 1503;
Vol. IV, pp. 1506 to 1993; tec aS0S to Core Vol, :
vol. . ee. A, ; ls t isa ait caang
741—Report, Backus to—Univergal on ”
Dubbs run, lasting 126} hours, at —
Ashland Refining Co. ............ 2 842 -
742—Report, Backus to Caiveonat on
Dubbs run, lasting 151 hours, at Ash-
land Refining Co. ............. r--. 2 842
(43—Letter, february 29, 1925; Backus :
‘to Bergman’ sete ener eesecseceeeens 2 842 *
829—Certified copy of daibalinige and
‘decision papers in Interference No.
| ee rere Kiaeenes as 4 1867
830—Holmes, “said and Behimer pat- aoe
ME RIE aiid cba ticwe ies -' | *3a28 .
Behimer Re-i issue patent 16,877 . | 7 3098
836—Drawing of Hall patent I, 175, 910° | oe
(Brown’s interpretation) ........... . 3 1383 4 1873
837—Drawing of Pielsticker -patent | 7 j
477,153 (Brown’s interpretation) .. 3° 1390 4 1875.
838—Simplified drawing of Greenstreet
patent 1,740, om (Brown’s See anand ,
OY cnassvens auettacn hates 3 1400 4 1877 |
839—Drawing of ‘Seenaiee ae | ;
1,407,619 (Brown’s interpretation) . 3 1404 4. 1879
*840—Enlarged drawing of Fig. 1 aN va |
Sam eee eat 1 = 740 = DX
DUE Wthenceisadaues ds badd eee onan 3 1409
843—Drawing of Fig. 1 and Fig 2 of ©
apparatus of . Dubbs application 7
M4979. ...... ‘wih ncaekh eas bon cules ‘3 1417. 4 1881
VoL Z, pp..1 to 880; ol. 32, pp. ‘851 to 1022; Vol. x11, PP. 1023 to 1503;
Vol. Iv 1505 to 1993; Vol. V. 1995 995 to 2463; Vol. 3084;
Vol. Viz. pp. 3085 to 3567. » DP. . Vi, pp. 2495 to
.
xiv me Se eee
__—§Destribed or § Reproduced
‘ ‘ in in Book of
th ‘Fectimony =. Exhibits ~
a . Vel. - Page Vel. Page
' 844-Simplified drawing of five still
‘apparatus, in Dubbs application
144,979 (Brown’s interpretation and ©
Pe calculations for gas oil) ............ ‘3.1417 «+4 1883
845—Simplified drawing of Dubbs ap-
_. plication 144,979 using two still ap-
_’ ‘paratus (Brown’s interpretation) .. 3 1429 4 1885
846—Simplified drawing (same as PX a
' -844) (Brown’s. interpretation and —
calcualtions for crude oil) .......... 3 1431 | 4 1887
847—Brown’s chart on vaporization of - .
905° A. P.: 1 gee ell... <i. cian e nts 3 1496 4 1889
848—Certified copy of File Wrapper of —
Dubbs application 144,979, filed Jan. |
a arerr PO SAE oe AORN 3 1466 4 1891
851—Brown’s calculations of Dubbs op- a al
erations for apparatus in Dubbs ap- a4 ae
—— No. 144,979 ..... Teeakanse 4.1967 —
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS..
; .) (Abstract) List of patent in-
163 a-m :
fringement suits by Uni-
- > versal against users of
#73 a-k Winkler-Koch stills, who
14 4-4) contributed to defense fund 5 1995
(175—Excerpts from. Texas Company
employee efficiency record for Be- ’ ;
ME 5 cs need unas i cpnacnasee oaks 1 183 .5 1997
176—Excerpts from certified-copy of
™ File Wrapper éf Behimer Appl. |
263,562, , Patent 2,027,014 ..... ey 1 183 5 2001
| 17 7—Excerpts from certified copy of
-File Wrapper of Behimer teh :
1,883,850 (Appl. 630,242) _ veer ree 1 _ 184 5 2008
178—Excerpts from certified copy o ee
' . File Wrapper of Interference No. ee -:
49,355 entitled ‘‘Dubbs v. Holmes, os;
Manley and Behimer’’ ............ 1 184 5 2052.:
179—Excerpts from. certified copy of
~ . File Wrapper of Interference No. ea
55,610 ipkaus anak decide aseshiiass 1 184 5 2118
180—Behimer’ s letter of Reciguation
to Texas Co., Aug. 24, 1927 ...... ee cor
181—Letter, Holmes to Behimer, ee
27, W927. ence eee eee eee eee e ee ees .
- 182—Letter Behimer to Holmes, Sept. —
30, 1927 and check EPEC CEO e TT ee 1 188
183—Letter, Dearborn to Sidlinas, as
\ oe + aeass SEP rer Pere rr 1 188
184—Letter, Dearborn to mee, Oct. a Ss
17, 1927 0s. ccc ce cern ceceessseeces 1 190
184A—Copy of ” Behimer’ 8 Cuatead a
with Texas Co., dated December 15,
OOD ckcpdugwancausercéua yanks es 1 191.
185—Letter, C. M. Thomas to. ‘Deae- . ae
. ‘born, Ost. 22, 1927 ........ aes a: 1 192
186—Letter, Dearborn to Thomas, Oct. : -
Oct. 24, 1927 pre errr erry Dae Free 1 193
187—Lefter Bebimer to Dearborn, Nov.
. 5, 1927 ese seegdeecceaes pies ciaaes 1 194 Fabre
VoL 1, pp. 1.to.550; Vol. IZ, pp. 551 to 1022; Vol. oa aaab Oo 3088:
Vol. IV, pp. 1806 to 1993; Vol. ¥, pp. 1995 to 2493; Vol. 2495 to 3084;
Vol. ‘VEE, pp. 3085 to 3867. va
AEG en tad
_ Repreduced
ae peed in tn Beak of
188—Letter, Thomas to Dearborn, Nov. ,
11, 1927 oars cccceneeeseceereceees 1 196
189—Telegram, deastais to Thomas,
12, 1987 02. cccscsccvccccccsccccese 1 197°
io Sista Thomas to Dearborn, Nov.
16, 1927 2... . es eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 1 197
191—Letter, Dearborn to Behimer, Nov.
25, 192T oo se ceeeercceececceseeeere D 197 .
192—Letter, Dearborn to Behimer, Dec.
eS eeerrerrrrrr reer ekae a 1 198
193—Letter, Dearborn to Thomas, Dee.
14, 1927 ...... iaeidiethatacesstes at 66199
194—Letter, Mace to, Thomas, Dec. 22, .
| oor 1 199
194A-—Dearborn Affidav it attached te
DX 194 0... e cee ce rece eee e cence 1 200
195—Letter, Thomas t to Mace, Dee. 27, -
et a dian dd tess ese 1 “202
196—Letter, ‘Behimer to Dearborn,
Mar. . i see Por te 1 203
197—Proposed Aniended Preliminary
Statement of Otto Behimer, attached
‘to DX 196 0.2... ccc e cece eee ee eee 1 206
- 202—Letter- of Sept. 7, 1926, Beyt toi 218
Wannack. Cheek attached to letter .. 1 218 5 2163
203—G. D. White affidavit dated Aug.
"31, 1926, with letter and env oe at- ;
Ns isc ci vanes odsau ruses beak 1° 219 -5 2165
_ -304—Affidavits of Dellinger, Belfimer,
White and Beyt ..<.....ceccsee%ss 1, 220
Ge ee hee
Vol. IV, 1505 to 1993 Nyaa
Vou. Vit, pp. 9008 0 3
et oe Described er Reprodyced
in in Book of
204A—Longhand letter, May 11, 1926 ©
to ‘‘My dear Friend,”’ unsigned,.... 1 221
204B—Typwritten letter, Apr. 22, 1926 at
to ‘My dear Friend,” unsigned . ie
' 205—Excerpts from Texas Co. “ae on .
Behimer patent 1, 883,850, consisting
_ of copy of Behimer’s assignment; let-
ter Nov. 25, 1932 Mace to Cooper;
letter, Dee. 1, 1932 Dearborn to Hal-
le; letter, Dec. 22. 1932 Behrens to
*- Dearborn: ......... whigeuadepesnnes 1 222
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 5 2168
208—Excerpts from File No. 2, Inter- —
Company correspondence. of the.
Texas Company, re Behimer ...... 9 2223
209—Letter, Dec. 5, 1927, Stratford to-
= I ind bacco 4cdisnd teense: - 5 . 2236
210 for Sent Late, Apr. 7, 1927, . |
Stratford to Dearborn ............ 1 244 ~5 2239.
211—Letter, Sept. 10, 1926, Stratford
IO Gcccdecctednbdeusanes 1 246
212—Affidavit of G. H. Von Brunow, |
- dated Mar. 11, 1926 ....... cenhie iy ot § 40a
213—Letter,. ‘sent from Clark Hotel, .
- Los Angeles,.to ‘‘Dear Harry,”’ un- a
signed, Oct. 23; 19286"... ......250-. 1 256 5 2246
Vol I, pp. 1 to 550; Wol. IZ, pp. 551 to 1089; ol. pp. 1083 to 1503; -
Vol. FV, pp. 1508 to 1993: Vol. V, pp. 1995 to to 2493; Vol. WI, pp. 2495 to 3084;
Vol. VIZ, pp. 2985 to 2567. ‘eck
Described or Reproduced
estineny Exhibits
Vel. Page Vel. Page
214—Letter, undated, sent from Rich
Hot#l, “Houston, to ‘‘Dear tend
-, Seb” GRRE cas cncetscnsssey 1 256 -5 2247
215--List of employees of. The Texas as
Company given by. Wannack to --
En cccccncntenpcssanenaesese ow 5 2247
216—List of Texas Company refinery
operators given by am te:
BA | BUTTTIUTTTTTITIYITES EL TTT TLE 5> 2249 °
217—Affidavit prepared for Maurice
Beyt, unsigned .......... tte e eee e es 1. . 162
218—Affidavit \ prepared for. Maurice
Bagh, Wee oon odes ac cess dgec Vs. 1 162
219—Affidavit prepared - for Maadles
Beyt, unsigned ?.)...... ee oP Ps ‘1 162. 5 2255.
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) 1 229 5 2260
221—Letter, Nov. 30, 1926, Fantz to”
o
g
MEE 3csocatceeucicdadsaeaccass 1 268
222—Letter, Nov. 30, 1926, Fantz to |
EE ccd dn dedsananhdeeed caeku 1, 268
293—Telegram, Dec. 7, 1925, ey ‘to
Bs SE an deckcddavwaisekaenets 1 269
'224—-Telegram, July 17, 1927, ¢. P.*
Dubbs to Robert J. Dunham........ 1 269
225—Telegram, July 17, 1927, C. P. -
Dubbs to Robert J. Dunham........ 1 270 ~
VoL Z, pp. 1 to 850; Wol. 3%, pp. 681 to 1089; Wol IIL pp.l0ea to 1503:
Vol. TV. pp. 1808 to 1983; Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 2483; Vol. b cgaion 3084;
Vol. VIX, pp. 3085 to 3567. Vi, pp.
xix -
226—Telegram, July 18, 1927, R. J. ‘
‘Dunham to C. P. Dubbs..:......... 1 270
227—Offfice Record Copy of Telegram,
July 18, 1927, R. G. Danielson to L.
‘H. ‘Thompson peonnedashbicseapesee 1. 271
228—Telegram, July 20, 1927, C. P.-
Dubbs to R. J. Dunham........... 1° 271
229—Telegram, July 21, 1927, Reich- -
imemn to-C. P. Debbs............... 1 272
; 230-—Telegram, July 22, 1927, A. F.
Reichmann to C. P. Dubbs....... in
231—Photostat of contract between
' Universal Oil Products Company and
* Otto Behimer, dated Aug. 20, 1927.. 1 272
* 232—Agreement between Otto Behimer
and Universal Oil Products Co.,
dated Nov. 16, 1927..............¢. 1 274
233—Letter, Nov. 16, 1927, R. J. Dun- |
ham to Otto Behimer........... aha 2
234— Wannack Expense meniorgnda :
_ (51 pages) for 1925 and 1926..... j. -". 5h 3
235—Wannack Expense - item dated ;
Aug. 7, WDM... cesses cdecscecceae’ oo 5 . 2337 ~
236A—Letter, way 3, 1925, Dubbs to ; mee |
DE cha ductbistieekahsnkenssae 5, 2389 .
236B—Letter, ‘July A 1925, Dubbs to leg ae
Re ae an te ‘5 -2339
236C—Telegram, July 9, 1925, Dubbs
Oe MEE .c.bbc due deobecevecsea ses ee ad 2340
wal Eye PP abode atest Vol. . B51 to 1022; Vol. DP. 1023 to 1503;
—_— DD. 1995 to 2493; Vol. : PP. 2495 to 3084;
Oe tele
lin tn Bok of
| . Va Pese | Veh
237—Beyt’ s Contract with Universal
Oil Products Co., dated Sept. 28, 1927 * ~§ 2341
238—Telegram, Oct. 1, 1927, Bia to. me
W. K. Holmes...... Chien Gana Caen ss 1 364
r 239—A pparatus for Reconstructed Ex- »
periment 8 operated Aug. 1926 (Page.
‘92 of Behimer’s affidavit).....:..... 5 2343
240—Apparatus for Experiment 8, op-
erated May to Aug. 1917 (Page 43B
of Behimer Affidavit) were beeen ene 5 2345
241 for ident.—Letter, Aug. 21, 1918, — .
Dubbs to R. C. Holmes...... paecias 5 2347
242-245—Abstract of Pleadings in suits
of Universal v. Texas Company. and —
Universal v. Standard Oil Company ;
(Ind.) in 1926 and 1927............ 1 414 5 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.
18, 1926, ‘‘W’’ to -Egeler; Letter,
Aug. 3,. 1926, Wannack to Egeler;
Note, Oct. 16, -1926, “Cal? to ‘“‘Dear '
Sir’? 2... Rey ge re Pe ee ee ; 5 2360
"3S RS PS a "4. 435
249—Letters. and telegrams between
Dubbs and Wannack, June, 1925 to r;
Nov. MMU dautascnhiesi cid hekee oe ‘ 5
WoL & pp.1 to 880; Vol. Pp. 551 to 1082; Vol. DP. 1083 to
Vol. FV, pp. 1606 to 1993; Wol. V pp. 1998 to 9483, Vol. Vi, pp. S408 te
Vol. VIX, pp. 3088 to 3867, nual ; ”
in Book of
307—Settlement agreement as of Apr.
1, 1939 (typewritten) between Uni-
_ versal and Root Petroleum Co....... 5 2376
308—Supplemental letter, Jan. 25, —
1939, sjgned by Universal and Root
Petroleum Co. modifying acto
2 of DX 307......... ccc eeeeeuss 5 2381
311—Letter, - Jan. 26, 1939, Root ;
Petroleum Co. to Thiess............ 5, 2383
525—Pyzel patent 1,597,821............ 7 3436
526—Jesse A. Duhbs patent 1,123,502... — 7 3174
527—Trumble patent‘ 1,281,884....... 7 3286
528—Pyzel patent 1,506,444.......... _ 7 3424
529—Pyzel patent 1,891,218.......... 7 3506
530—Pyzel patent 1,622,737....:..... / 7 344d
554—Hanna patent 1 449,226 bons Sie 7. 3394
555—Hanna patent 1,449,227.......... 7 }
556—Drawings of Richmond (Hanna)
Pressure Still ...... ce Madaaten bees -2 _ 568
557—Drawing of Halloran and Strout
Still, dated Aug. 30, 1923............ 570
558—Drawing of Halloran. and Strout
Still, dated Jan. 22, 1924............ 2 570
559—Flow sheet of proposed modified
Richmond (Halloran and Strout)
cracking process, dated March 18,
_ 1924 PeeeOeeeeseseeeeseeesceegeses
5#1—Hanna patent 1,655,603...... Sor
a
TET Syren hares
2 578 .5 2385
3462
xxii
Described or § Reproduced
in in Book of
estimony Exhibits
2 562—Standard Oil Co. frewing. B-21601
(Dubbs furnace) ................4. 2 592
563—Standard Oil Co. Drawing A- 21589 a
eee TROIS iss akc sc ieccabnces 2 592
564—Record sheets for Run No. 16, :
, PUNO TOMS 2. nce ee sececces ink anes 2.. 592
565—Record sheets eid Run No. 41,
Se PROT re Tee eT tre ree 2 593
588—Defendant’s request for admis-
sion of genuineness of documents... 5 . 2387.
589-—Plaintiff’s answer to request for
- admission of — genuineness of docu- ee
CE cus cei bas wie ce ev eC ucuR ees ' 3 2392
590—Abstract of Booklet by U.O.P— |
1924-25 ...... SON LON Ee 2 625 5 2393
591—Abstract of Booklet by U. O. P.— 3
WN os ica et cece ee ee towiaeee 2 625 > 35
592—Abstract of, Booklet by U. O. P. “=
Mr as 2 625 5 2401
3450
3512
3520
) 505-—-Hiath Patent sero. Pavicres
596—Huff Patent: 2,039,797..........
599—Patent application A (Homes,
Manley & Behimer),. delivered to .
Nesbitt by Mackenzie to be forwarded
Oe Se ao ce ce oes oe eee 3 1023
600—Excerpt from letter, Mackenzie to _
‘Nesbitt, March 22, 1918............. . 3. 1023
601—Telegram, Mackenzie to Holmes, |
MN ye DUNS ik ic kcccasieesas a ae ae
>)
RE
i mS
=
y
—_
>
ee
—
hog
2
NN
w
on
Nyanga
- 2403
qv
Vol. I, pp. 1 to 550;-Vol. 1%, pp. 551 to 1082; Vol. IIZ, pp. 1023 to 1503;
Vol. IV. pp. 1605 to 1993; Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 2493; Vol. Wi, pp..2495 to 3084;
Vel. VIz, pp. 3085 to 3567.
2
xxiii
602—Excerpt from letter, Mackenzie |
to Holmes, Apr. 27, 1918..........; 3 1027
603—-Excerpt from letter, Mackenzie to
Nesbitt, May 3, 1918............... 3 1028
2 604—Letter, Nesbitt to Foster, Free- )
man, Watson and Coit, May 4,1918:. 3 1028 5 2414
605—Letter, Coit to ) Meats, May 6,
WE cede mae xs 31028 5 2414
606—Letter, Mackenzie to Coit, ‘May 9, _* .
EE catia Soa raeeknnn un ei ved nes seks: 3 1028
607—Letter, Coit to Mackenzie, May
EE oI 4.4 065 S4k 04d chee etwas 3 1028
608—Letter, Mackenzie to Holmes, May
31, 1918 ...... appar oe Torerer? 2 979
a. 3 1028
609—Excerpt from letter, Coit to Nes- :
Dect, Sume S,.191B 2:65. gece ce cesccys 3 1029.
: 610—Excerpts from letter, Nesbitt to -
Coit, June 13, 1918 (Mackenzic’ s
3 SPR Rar ee an iran SRM AEN 3 1029
611—Letter, Coit to Nesbitt, June 15,
I es i ee 3 1030
o 612—Letter, Nesbit to Holmes, July
- 23, 1918, and attached copy of letter
from Coit to Nesbitt, dated July 22;
¢ | PRE ee op eeaekaaeaees 3 1031
613—Letter, Mackenzie to Holmes, Aug. - .
97, 1918 ..... ne Nes 3 1031
614—Excerpts from letter, Mackenzie
to Holmes, Sept..9, 1918............ 3 1033
Vol x, pp. 1 to B50; Vol. IZ, pp. 551 to 1022; Vol. IIT, pp. 1023 to 1503;
Vol. IV, pp. 1505 to 1993; Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 2493; Vol. VI, pp. 2495 to 3084;
Vol. VII, pp. 3085 to 3567.
XXiv
615—Letter, Thomas to Mackenzie, _
- Sept. 13, 1918, enclosing letter from
Coit, dated Sept. 11, 1918.......... 3 1033 -
616—Letter, “Mackenzie to Thomas,
Sept: 94,-1998 io... tececseceess. 3 1034
617—Letter,, Mackenzie to ‘Selats,
oe peer Pere 3 1034
618—Letter, Mackeasie to Van ae,
SA Ska dtd ab cesacanbannas 3 - 1035
619—Letter, Van Gundy to Mackenzie, ;
Oct. 31, 1918 ...... See at RoE ie 3 1035
620—Letter, Behimer ” to “Mackenzie. i? .
) _ Oct. PO 0 As Ch Weennods i ceeenns 2° 915
: 3 1035
621—Letter, Mackensie . to Holmes,
Nov. ee RUE Siewetneuiecisirccencs 3 1036,
622—Letter, Mackenzie to Thomas,
ince rere vecks ‘... 3 1036
623A—Flouw diagram by De Florez, of .
operation at Bayonne (Hall Process) 2 847
626—Excerpt- from: report, Mackenzie
' to Holmes, Feb. 28, 1917, Runs 12 to -
24 | Ba ee 2° 853
627—Report, Mackenzie to Holmes,
_ April 12, 1917, Runs 25, 26, 32‘and 33 4 1044
628—Excerpts from final report on
Hall Process, May 9, 1917...... exe S 1039
629—Excerpt from report on Hall Proc-
ess; Mackenzie to Holmes, May 7,
or.
- 2415
9417
2419
2422
ot rere rere Missal scaees ans san *. 3. 1045
"Vol. %; pp. 1 to 880; Vol. IT, pp. 551 to 1082; Wol. IZ, pp. 1083 to 1503:
Vol. IV, pp. 1505 to 1993: Vol. Wi bp. 189" to 2483: Vol. Vi, pp. 9496 Yo 3004;
630—Excerpt from report on Hall Proc-
ess; Mackenzie to Manley, May 29,
errr errr TeTer ree rrr erry 3 1040
632—Excerpt from report, Mackenzie
to Holmes, Oct. 17, 1917, Summary of
‘Runs 101 to 109 on Hall Process.... 3 1040
'634—Report, Mackenzie to. Shien ,
Oct. 26, 1917, on Hall Process .......3 1042 5 2436
- 635—Reporf, Mackenzie to Holmes,:
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 :
demonstrate vayor pressure ....... 2, 792 5 2449
.642—Cady curve of vapor presente of 7
EE atic d dub aeekGhbscekesceeawnks 2° 793 5 2451
644—Cady photograph of elie of
0 RT ee ere 2 -796 5 2453
645—-Cady photograph of column after os
boiling DU IEE nau ess couch an 2 797 5 2453
646—Cady diagram of apparatus used -
to measure vapor pressure of mixed |
liquid solutions ...:.......... Se a: one
647—Cady diagram of epperedeis show-
ing the partial pressure effect in
_ fractionation of a solution ........ . 2 .802 5 2457
648—Excerpt from Science of Common - ;
Things, p. 194, by Wells (1863)..... 2 804° 5
2459
649—Excérpt from Physics for. College |
Student, p. 375, by Carhart (1910).. 2 804 5 2459
Vol I, pp. 1 to 550; Vol. IZ, pp "681 to 1022; Vol. PR 1027 to 1503;
Vol. IV, pp. 1505 to 1993; Vol. v vp. 1995 to 2493; Vol. PP. 2495 to 3084;
Vol. VII, pp. 3085 to 3567. ;
Tin in Beok of
estimeny | Exhibits
Vol. Page Vel. Page
650—Excerpt from A Text Book of
Physics, p. 196, by Spinney (1925).. 2 804 5 2459
-651—Excerpt from Physics, Advanced oe
Course, by Barker, p. 309 (1892).... 2 805 5 2460
' 652—Excerpt from Elementary Trea-
tise on Physics, p. 341, .Atkinson’s _ |
Translation of Ganot (1879) ....... 2 805 -5 2460
653—Excerpt froni Essentjals of Phys-
ics for College Students, p. 115, by -
_. Bee CHES) 2... sss POT eee 5 2461.
654— Excerpt from College Physics, |
p. 240, by Reed and Guthe (1912).. 5 2461
655—Excerpt from The Elements a
Physics, p. 192, by Coleman (1906).. 5 2461 _
656—Excerpt from The Elements of ake
Physics, p. 148, by Carhart & Chute se :
SE Std te ceva wer ede ks teks axa ks 5 2461
657—Excerpts from Physics for Stu-
dents of Applied Science, pp. 198 and .
_ 202, by Shrader (1937) ...:...... 5 2462
658—Excerpt from. A Textbook of. In-
organic Chemistry for Colleges, -
163, by Norris (1921) .........<:.. 2 805 5 2462
660—Behimer Patent 1,883, 850....... 7 3494
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
1. Tv, pp. 1806 to 198 ol. 37, Pp. SEL so 1008; Vel. TEE. pp. 1083 to 1203:
XXxVii
665—Clark and Abbey line diagram of
heating coil of Experiment 8, dated
Aug: 17, 1916 «00... eeeeee eee eee ees 2 882
_ 666—Drawing Y-1562, Smith Drawing
of Coil, Experiment 8, dated Sept. 18,
Qe cceltaneadheesschektsdnkeces 2 882
667—Photostat of blue print from otig- |
inal tracing 1648 ‘showing coil and
drum Experiment'8, with marks by. .
Behimer (See DX 754) ....... eee 2° 883
667A—Enlargement of box title of DX
667, showing date of Nov. 6, 1916.... 2° 883 :
668—Photostats (front and ae of.
blue print from tracing Y-1703, dated
BO WUE ob. ie hvakesucssdivesies 2- - 885
669—Photostat of tracing Y-1703 as:re-
' vised, dated Jan. 29,. 1917 Niakaknews 2 - 885
670—Letter, Mar. 23, 1917, Detwiler to
MEE nccavaaed cctanencesueenuen 2 1008 ~
Experiment errr re ‘cubweneuGekes 2 886
672—Test data on jet ral - dated
errr errr rere etre 2 886:
673A—Earnest drawing No. 23 (page
1) of apparatus erected in coil and
drum Experimetit 8 ............. +2 887"
673B—Earnest drawing No. 23. (Page
. 2) of apparatus erected in coil and
drum Experiment i ecanen Teannad kx 2 887
674—Group of textbook excerpts, re
DS 2473
fod |
2475
i>) |
2477
6 279.° °
5 2483
5 2485
5 * 2487
5 * 2489
5 2491
.5. 2493
Vol. Z, pp. 1 to 550; Vol. IZ, pp. 651 to 1022; Vol. PP. 1023 to 1503;
Vol. IV, pp. 1505 ee 7 Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 2493; Vol. PP. 2495 to 3084; .
Vol. VII, yp.
fia in Book of
‘estimony Exhibits
675—Behimer’s fractioning equipment ae be
(Sketch Perr Se Perret 2 892:. 6 . 2495
675A—Behimer’ s condenser for ftac- ; .
tionators (Sketch #9)...... adae (2 892 6 2497
676—Records of Run 6, Experiment 8
(coil and drum) ..........-seees. ‘a
‘677—Records of Run 7, Experiment 8
op” | RApeea pee) saree 2.
678—-Records of Run 8, Experimental 8
(coil and drum) piace cekueevene kas 2
679—Records of Run 9, Experimental Ss .
(coil and SED <0sca dees bivesabeks 2
ehimer’ 8 distillation a book 2
681—Behimer’ Ss permanent record Sook
pages for Runs'6-9 ............. oe oy
- 6 2579
. 682—Behimer’s index cards for Runs on
PORMOTEOME & .. ooo osc cn cecces eet aind 2
683—Excerpt of letter, June 27, 1917,
Manley to Detwiler ............... 2
-684—Excerpt of letter, Aug. 14, 1917,
Manley to Detwiler ............... 2
' 685—Behimer’s sketch of proposed
semi-commercial appartus ......... 2
686—Drawing Y-2200 of proposed semi-
commercial ‘apparatus, dated Sept:
et UE. inne dcuaenes sees 2
687—Letter, Nov. 5, 1917,. Dawson to
Bailey, with enclosed letter, Nov. 1, ;
‘1917, Collings ‘to Dawson .......... 2 911 6 2643
b tg alt gt BA Vol. Pp. 551 to 1082; - Vol. PP. 1023 to 1503;
Vol. IV, pp. 1505 oe aed Vol. 7+ BD. 1995 to 9483; Vol. PP. 2495 to 3084;
Vol. VII, pp. 3085 to, , 3567. ‘ ct a
8 . 28 g 982 8 og
‘
6 2639
2641
es
_ Vol. IV, pp. 1505 to 1993; Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 2493; Vol. Pp. 2495 to
. Desertbed or Revroduced
: _ _ Sxhibies
ae Vel. Page Vel. Page
688—Excerpt from letter, Behimer to
Bailey, Nov. 7, 1917 :........ eke 2 911 -
-- 689—Letter, Bailey to Behimer, Nov. x | .
OEE rr er rrr: PorrEe ere 2 912 6. 2644
690—Excerpt from- Seay Manley to
Bailey, eS errr eee 2 912
691—Letter, Bailey io Dawaén, Dec. . ee
RN cdank dun ancnsies cha 2 912 6 2645
692—Letter, Risdon. to Bailey, Jan. 3, ad
WDNR occ c eee eee eee e eee wees 2 912 6 2646
693—Drawing Y-2282; incomplete _
-Hartzler drawing of proposed coil :
and drum semi-commercial apparatus 2 912 6 2649 |
. 694—Donaldson’s working copy of |
-Behimer patent, a (third -
EE <ie chs: dunananseseessk en ee 914
- 695—Tracing U-2310 for patent speci- |
. fication, dated Jan..4,1918 ......... 2 914 6 2651
696—Certified copy of Holmes, Manley
& Behimer application | No. 263,562, ; 7
ME hance Wo ods vce taleneawess 6 2653
697—Drawing p. 169, dated Dec. 24, |
1917, showing Batteries 2 and 3 of |
GND: TD a wiii'n koe acccndeences 2 915 6 2671 —
698—Draywing of heating coil of Bat-
tery 3, dated July 2, 1918 .......... 2 915
699—Letter, Risdon to Capen, June 18, :
EE chibieeeeay eka Gane News aeee 2 915 6 2673
Vou & pp..1 to 860; Vol. IX, pp. 851 to 1088; Vol. "sist Baa
fie in Book of
Sys et ore — ee
~700—Letter, Vilter Mfg. Co. to Texas
Co., July 25, 1918:............ shoes 2 916
701—Excerpt from letter, Behimer to |
Manley, Sept. 13, 1918 ...... Sbhenkes -2 916
703—Letter, Capen to Schutte-Koert- .
ing; Nev. SB, 1918 ....5.2cscccccces 2 917 6 2675
. 704—Letter, Schutte-Koerting toTexas
Tg MR, G, FOND ie ccdiccdescecccses 2 917 | 6 2675 —
705—Excerpts from Run sheets of Run
- 5, Battery 3, _Experiment 18, cated - '
.. Dee. -9-14,- NN eae ds W, 2 917°. 6 ..2677
' 706—Excerpts from report on Battery
2, Run 14 (with prebeater coil), dated - .
See UE EE 00S dicndcccocecces “i 919 6 2680
707—Excerpts from report on Run 7,
Battery 3, mxperiment 1 18, dated Jan.
cab asdnd sas 6b se Sb eenes 2 919 6 2685
708—Excerpts from report on Run 8,
Battery 3, Experiment 18, dated ;
Feb. 25-27, 1919.........: beeches. 2 919° 6_ 2688
709—Drawi ing H-405—Alterations: to. |
* 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
- Behimer, May 6, 1919 {eee Oe eee 2 921 6 2698
Vol 1 to 850; Vol. 1 551 to 1088; Vol. 1083 to 1503;
Vol. IV, pp 1808 to to 1983; Vol. ~~. 1995 to + Vol. Ty. 2008 to 2084;
Vol. VIZ, pp. 3085 to 3567. ae
| fin "Book of
Va. Page ve Page °
710D—Excerpt from letter, Manley to
Behimer, May 20, 1919............ 2 921
711—Excerpts from Run 3, Battery 4,
Experiment 18, April 26, 1919...... 2 921. 6 2699
712—Letter, Behimer to Holmes, Dec. j
Oe EE ee ee 2 / 924
if 713—Letter, Holmes to Behimer,: Dec.
i, ee ia. PE Pow re peo © OM
'- 714—Drawing X-3595A of . preheater
and economizer of Experiment 118,
dated April 3, 1920..............:. 2 925
715—Drawing ‘Y-3619A—Apparatus of
Experiment 11B, dated April. 15, | :
SU ssessees sted aeseaeeeceeeseies ‘6 2705
716—Behimer’s notations; re jets ‘#6 |
and #7 for Experiment 11B, tested
_ March 22, 1920........ reieies ae:
. 717A—Letter, Behimer to. Am. Steam —
_ Pump, Feb. 19, 1920.............. 2 925.
‘717B—Letter, Am. Steam Pump to -
‘Texas Co., Feb. 25, i ésese-< tet 2 925
718A—Letter, Behimer to WE. Quim- : or
-— +» & “SS. Severe 2. 926.
_718B—Letter, W. E. Quimby, Ine., to
Texas Co., Mar. 13, 1920.......... 2 926
719A—Letter, Behimer to Ohio In- . ;
jector Co., May 20, 1920........... 2 926 —
719B—Letter, Ohio Injector Co. to 7
Behimer, May 25,.1920........ ae. a
Vol. I, pp. 3 to 550; Vol. IZ, pp. 551 to 1082; Vol. 1023 to 1503;
va Tak on cone te aear Vol. 'V, pp. 1995 to 9483; Vol, Wy seed to sone,
720—Blueprint of tracing Y-4422 of - ~
centrifugal pump, dated Mar. 8, 1920 2 926
721A—Drawing of Parish rotary pump,
marked ‘‘89°"" ....... ooccedenenece = +
721B—Drawing of plunger type pump,
marked ‘‘90”’ -........ sanedsaiibces 2 927
722A—Letter, Bender to Behimer, |
SS SE hd cdvdcccsdscA Bisen 2 927
722B—Letter, Behimer to Bender, | ‘
Jan. 18, 1921. ........... ese eee eeee 2 927 --
723—Drawing Z-4346, showing hori-
zontal, double acting, plunger type | |
pump, dated Mar. 4, 1921.......... 2 927 6 2707
724—Letter, Dow Pump Co. to Texas © roe
Se s | Are re 2 927 6 2709
725—Behimer -. notegram to Capen, Mee
April 9, 1921. .......e.e eee eee eee. 2 928 6 2713
726--Notegram, Behimer to Elliott, . :
i 3 Ay ee ey ee ; 6 2713-
727—Notegram, Behimer . to . Dodge, |
May Mb cissedh bed eeiens danke 2, 928 6 2717
728—Drawing X-4644, ais pump, | ss;
dated May 98, 1921....... iaaniaey 2° 928 6 «2719
729—-Flow diagram of original com- -. *
mercial batteries of the Texas Co., ak
started March 1920................ ‘2.929 & 2721
. 730—Drawing Y-4630 dated May 21,
1921, showing Battery 14 with Surge
PUMP... cece ccc ec ecececececees oo 2 930. 6 2723
, . BP. 561 to 1088; Vol. yp. 1088 to 1303:
Vol rv. 1568 to 1908; Vou'v 1988 to 9463; Vol. 3084 ;
- Vol. Wit. pp =x. —_—
we Pd
Described Reproduced
ri in Book of
Exhibits
estimony ~
. Vel. - Page Vol. Page
731—Drawing Y-4871, showing modi- .
_ fied rr pump installation, dated :
2 OS) Ue PPS Pere aces 2 930 6 2725
732—Flow diagram of Run 63, Battery
14, using Surge pump return of re-
flux to the coil, Oct. 31, 1921° to ee
Nov. 3, 1921......... Shaubesivesa: 2 931 6 2727
733—T racing record of tracing Y-1703 2 987 |-6 2729
734 for ident.—Behimer’s statement to - |
' the Texas Co. in 1926 pueecouenenawe 2 952. 6 2731
735—Excerpt from: letter, Alther to» »
Backus, Oct. 23, 1924..... peitadaac: 2 837
736—Exeerpts from letter, Bergman to ;
Huff, Mar. 19, 1925...°... piewaa we : 2 838
2 737—Excerpt from: \letter, Bergman to . ;
. Huff, Apr. 13, 1925,........... <...2 839
738—Distillation report of Dubbs resi- :
SET oon ns av awadtio nessun van ot . 2 840 °
739—Distillation report “ef Dubbs
charging FP Pe ry Pre -2 840
740—Distillation report of Dubbs resi- |
— due from Unit #2. evedtnes ey -2 840
745 for ident. —Excerpt “from letter,
Behimer to Dodge, Mar. 21, 1924. . 2 953
746A- O—Photographs: of Bayonne ap- \
paratus. for Hall Process.......... 2”..850 6 2749
747—Log sheets of Run 24 at Bayonne -
(See Summary, DX 850).......... 2. 858
Vol. I, pp. 1 to 580; Wol. 11, pp. 551 to 1042; Wol. III. pp to 1503;
vol. IV, pp. 1505 to.1993: Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 2493; Vol. WI, pp. 2495 to 3084;
@ er xxiv
= ty
Vel. Page Vel: Page
750—Fxcerpts from De Florez article -
(1923) in ‘‘The Refiner: and Na-
_ tional ‘Gasoline Manufacturer” Mag-
MTT TT TTT seceteccsecess 2 GBT
_751—Excerpts from De Florez article
_ in ‘National Petroleum News,’’;
‘\ Sh BE e cdadibinsances kaka as . 2 859
752—T racing record of Drawing Y-1648 2 *986 6 2779
753—Blueprint of tracing Y-1648 (Bur-
ton stills layout), dated Jan: 29, 1917 2 986
754—Smith’s recopy ‘of original - ‘trac-
' ing 1648 (See DX-667)...... 0.2.5 2 986 6 2781
755—Donaldson’ s blueprint #11955, eo |
tracing 1703-Y (See DX 668, 669).. 999 6 2783:
x 756—Letter, . Donaldson to a
Feb. 2, 1918, with aus applica-. '
tion ”. arbvkaniaes eRebdhbtecdieenees 971
| i | 2.1000 6 278
757—Excerpt- from. letter, Donaldson
to Holmes, Jan. 22, 1918 umectns ‘ee 971
. 2 1001
758—Letter, Holmes to Manley, May -
jo SME he N thas 4bckadat doce. ioc, 6 2795
‘759—Letter, (enclosures omitted) Det:
‘\~ wiled to Ma. ley, June 20, 1917 (See
We WE ke ee a ei vi bd vanksedsaseiore. -2. 903 6 2796
760—Thompson Patent 1,250,050..... 7 3254
761—Letter, Holmes to Manley, Jan.
So SE oa eins FA ab ae SPeTe FOP ee 2. 971 6 2R00
762—Telegram, Holmes. to Manley, ;
Prob: 6; 1998.20.00... 0..cccesceeee . 2. 972 6 ‘2903
bet dad ot aa Val y"Bp ted" Se Wa, "By. a Wy Se
763—Letter, Manley. to Holmes, Feb.
DO 1DIB 6 oc siccccqocccwccscsceccas 2 972
‘ ‘764—Letter, Holmes to: Lufkin, March
BD, BOND nn cccccecccccsccsiccgeres 2 972
765—Letter, Donaldson to Manley, Feb.
BD, 2D1B.-. 6. oda ccccccccdcccccccese 2 .1002
769—Detwiler memorandum, Novem:
ber 29, 1916, re secrecy..........+- 2 1006
772)—Perspective drawing of Dubbs ;
773 paterit 1,392,629 ............ 3 1072 6 2805
774-A) —Flow diagram of Defendant’s:
774 JS } operation at Lemont, IIL,
prepared by H. V. Smith... 3 1115
775—Photograph of Defendant’s plant . e
at Lemont, Ill. ..... peebnciaweeaess "3 1115 -6 2809
776—Brown’s vapor pressure chart in
the Root case, with marks by H. V-
D>
BED cw crcccccccececccsescuceseee ‘3 1134 6 211
777—Sketch of Jenkins still, prepared . |
> AA Speers 3 1139 6 2813
778—Drawing of coil distillation ap- - ° |
paratus, prepared by Reiman...... 3.1179 «6 215
779—Atwood Patent 28,448.......... 7 3110
780-—Simplified drawing of Atwood |
Patent, prepared by Reiman....... 3 1184 6 2R17
781—Merrill Reissue patent 7,096. ... 7 3105
‘782—Dewar and Redwood ~ patent :
GID TRE “an ccrgcccccccccegeccccgeces : 7 3122
783—Burton patent 1 105,961 casecase . 7 3164 —
vat. Bebe eae ee ee tees a "7s, 7, 1 poet:
Reprodeced in tn Beak of
) Va Pas | Vel Page
784—-Humphreys patent 1,119,700.... : 7 3170
.785—Edwards, patent 1,170,884....... 7 3182
786—Smith patent 1,239,423......... 7 3224
787—Benton (Br.) patent 1,922 of 1887 7 3527
; ~~, 188—Pielsticker (Br.) patent 6,466 of : ane
1890 PC eee Tee Fe eer kt Chere ’ 7 3545
789—PYelsticker (Br, patent 1,706 _ ree |
i re reer ee ie wren ' % 3539
790—Pielsticker (Br) eee 1,308 of erty
Se. “scree paws nn aehks Mae desea : 7 3531
#91:-Sivaplified pe of Piclsticker . eas,
‘patent, prepared by Reiman ....... 3 1210. 6 2819
_ 792—Pielsticker patent 477,153....... ' 7 3126
793—Yall patent 1,175,910........... 7 3200
*. 794—Letter,- Kinzer: to Dawson, Sept. a |
21, WONT «6... eee eee eet e ee eee 2 1015- 6, 2821
795—Letter,. Daw son - Bailey, Sept.
i EE whan cdaednd ses as ceuewies 2 1015. 6 2821
796A—Letter, Kinzer to Dawson, Oct. . | ae
ee. rae eh Peewee Er ere 2 1016 6 2822
-796B—Drawing U-2912, enclosed in. |
796A, of high: pressure: still drum, = "+ * -
Experiment 12, dated. Sept. 5, 1917..-2 1018 6. 2823.
797—Drawing P-227, dated. June 5,° ©. |
1919, showing plan of a commercial
battery without pump and clean cir-_ . i
-dulation ©...... cht axes eames vvuecsS 2007 6 9035.
798—-Drawing. P-230, dated: dais . @
- 1919, showing. longitydinal section of :
same stillg".:......... Vs niedonacis 2 1017 6 2827
Vol. I, pp. 1 to 550; Yol. PP. 551 to 1
. Yel. EV, Dy. 1808 So 1980; Vol. + PP 1996 to
Vol. VII, pp. 3085 to 3567.
oa2; 1082 to 1503;
aeday wel. Bp. 1082 vo 1503:
Described or
in in Book of
Vel. | Page Vol. Page
799_Drawing P. 238 showing preheater, . ee:
¢ dated June &, -1919........cccceecs- 2.1017 6 2829
800—Drawing Y-4578, dated May 21, ,
1921, showing piping for float gauge
and Surge pump for back trap, Bat- |
We S60 3h asiss bcixe wee aes saae ba 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
| ee Serre rrr rrr ree . 6 2833
803—Simplified drawing of Biddison & ;
Boyd patent prepared by Reiman... 3 1231 6 2863
-804—Ellis patent 1,396,999.......... nai 7 3352
P 805—Simplified drawing of Tremble 7 ;
_ patent 1,281,884, preparedby Reiman 3 1250 6 2865
. 806—Alexander patent ‘1,407,619... 7 3364
807—Excerpts ‘from certified copy of . a maar 7
Alexander patent File Wrapper..... : °6 2867
- 808—Alexander patent, simplified draw- - |
"ing prepared by er eee 3 1256 6 2897
- 809—Greenstreet patent 1,740,601... . 18476
810—Excerpts from certified copy of :
- File Wrapper of Greenstreet i e my
A Peper) Teer Pere er Tre ore 3 1283 6 2899
811—Enlarged drawing of Greenstreet
patent with colored lines, piunire dy
Ee ae eee 3 1265 6 2953,
812—Simplified drawing of Gramestvent } zs .
patent, prepared by Reiman... eee 3.1270 6 .2959 -
. ‘Wol. Z, pp. 1 to $50; Vol. 22, pp. 551 to 1082; Vol, 1023 to 1503;
Vol. IV, pp. 1505 to 1993; Vol. V. pp. 1995 to 9403, Vol. Vi, pp. 2405 to 3084;
ee . 3088 to 3867. :
Vol. IV, pp. 1505 to 1993; Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 2493; V
Vol. WIZ, pp. 3085 to 3567.
* fin im Book of
| Vol. Page Vol. Page
.813—Prior Art Patents in File Wrap-
per of Dubbs, 1,392,629, except those
shown as separate exhibits: . 7
Hall patent No. 1,175,909......... 7 3194
Zerning patent No. 1,183,266: ..... 7 3208 ©
Lambert patent No. 1,245,930..... 7 3238
Ellis patent No. 1,249,278......... 7 3248
' Coast patent No. 1,250,799........ a 7. 3262
814—Prior Art Patents in File Wrap-
. per of Egloff, 1,537,593, except those Fy
shown as separate exhibits :
Perkins patent No. 399,073....... 7, 3116
Lang patent No: 954,575.......... 7 3140
Gillons patent No. 1,084,080.°.... 7 3154
Forward patent No. 1,202 823 Caie's 6 7 8218
Curran patent No. 1,255,714...... 7 3268
815—Dubbs patent 1,686,654.......... 7 3468 -
816 for ident.—Excerpts from certified
copy of File Wrapper of Dubbs - i
RRR firey rere 3 1345 6, 2961
817—U. O. P. Bulletin B536, dated Jan
Dh SE WWbs XA VR La sdedear sees ,6 2977
_ 818A-O—Summaries of Run sheets for .
Dubbs ‘cracking. units.............. 6 2978
819—Exeer)ts from U. O. P. Bulletin
(1936) entitled ‘‘Cracking, Yester- | |
day, Today’ and ‘Tomorrow’’........ . — 6 2993 |
820—Excerpts from U. 0. P. ‘Bulletin’ .
SR-508, June .20, 1932.......... Kies ' 6 2993
821—Excerpts from U. O, P. Bulletin Bi
SR-521, June ik. MG ick eeeneaes ‘ 6 2994
“you & opto 000.7 Vol. 1H, pp. 651 v0, 1003; Vol. TH pp . 1083 “3303;
ol. Vi, DD. 2495
»’
822—Hall patent 1,285,136...........
§23—Hall patent 1,242,796...........
824—Hali patent 1,194,289...........
825—Excerpts from, ‘Principles of
Chemical Engineering’’ by Walker,
* Lewis and McAdams....... ery ery
826A—Excerpts from certified copy - of
File Wrapper of sntestorenes ‘No.
SD siveves Rpcsesunndesedascedss
-827A—Excerpts from the Warner-
IMIR TICE. oa ccc ceceecccsccee
827 B—Pielsticker drawing from the
- Warner-Quinlan Brief ......... eer
828—Excerpts from “Interrogatories
and Answer in ©. P. Dubbs v. Uni-
versal Oil Products Co.............
831—M echling free hand sketch of nor-
mal Alexander operation...........
832—Meehling free hand sketch a
. “Regular Operation”’ ...........
833—Mechling free hand sketch 42
“‘Returh of part of condensate from
Fractionating Tower .with Fresh
Te ude eeeeghedeneé
no title ished thee hhd seh aaed& <
3 1355
3 1356
835-—Mechling free hand sketch #4—.
‘‘Return of part of condensate from
Exchanger Tower with Fresh Feed’’
3 1356
6 3015
6 3017
6 3021
6 3023
6 3025
6 3027
6 3029
Vol. I, pp. S05'to West vol. Wp 551 to 1082; Vol, a 1033 to 1503;
PP. 2495 to 3084;
ie
849—Summary of demonstration Runs_ - noe
_ ' for Dubbs units, Avon, Calif.,.1924-25 6 3031
—850—Summary of Converter. Logs of
Run 24 at Bayonne (Hall Process), rae:
dated Jan. 22 to Feb. 5, 1917...... a - 6 3033
Motion by Defendant for re-admitting into qvidents,
DX-816, filed June Oe nc hwiac ya s'ddcaxanxee 3033
Opinion on Merits, filed July 24, 1941.............. , 3035
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed Oct. .
5 RR eth eee ree Perr err re. 3052
Judgment, entered Oct. 14, 1941........ sabececee & 38061
Notice of Appeal, filed Nov. 7, 1941.2... 24-8062 |
Statement of Points............... kee kenen dav awawe 3062 .
Bond on Appeal... ......s.scccescesess caeieeaad 3065
Stipulated Designation of Record. reikeaas pene f EN .3066
Agreed Statement as to Exhibits........ peseceees SOTO
Stipulation as to.an Abstract of the Record, approved |
by y Judge spaicscceh de (peek suveuneced bUasekees 3083
UNITED STATES LETTERS PATENT.
— 1,392, 629—C. P. Dubbs, Oct. 4, 1921 roe. ae 3086
No. 1,537 593—G. Egloff, May 12, 1925. APA eer ee Pe 3094
No. ’ .1096—Reissue—R. 8. Merrill, May 2, “1876. .3105
No. 16,877—Reissne—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 .
WoL I, pp. 1 to 580; Vol 3%, pp 681 to 1088; Vol. XIX, pp. 1083 to 1803:
Vol. Iv, pp 1808 to 1993: Vol. Vv, Dp 1808 to 9663; Vol. Vi, pp. 9496 to 3004;
Vol. VIZ, pp..3085 to 3567. ¥ ;
\
Ae
No.
No.
xii |
419, 931—J. hens, et al., Jan. 21, 1890.........3122 ”
No.
No. 477,153—C. M. Pielsticker, June 14, 1892. sotec al
No. 954,575—J. Shaug, Apr. 12, 1910........ eee. 8140:
No. 1,049,667—W. M. Burton, Jan. 7, 1913....:......3150
. 1,084,080—G. H. Gillons, Jan. 13, 1914:........ . 3154
No. 1,105,961—W. M. Burton, Aug. 4, 1914...........3164
No. 1,119,700—R. E. Humphreys, Dec. 1, 1914........ 3170
No. 1,123,502—J. A. Dubbs, Jan. 5, 1915....:........ 3174
No. 1,170,884—S. H. Edwards, Feb. 8, 1916...... +... 8182
No. 1,175,909-——W. A. Hall; Mar. 14, 1916........ .. :3194.
No. 1,175,910—W. A. Hall, Mar. 14, 1916............3200
No. 1,183,266—H. Zerning, May 16, 1916:........ 8208 |
No.:1,194,289—W. A. Hall, Aug. 8, 1916.......... .. 3212
No. 1,202,823—C. Forward, Oct. 31, 1916............ 3218
No. 1,239,423—A. D. Smith, Sept. 4, > Ee ".. 8224
“No. 1,242,796—W. A. Hall, Oct. 9, 1917..............3230,
No. 1,245,930—C. G. Lambert, Nov. 6, 1917....... +». 8238
No. 1,249,278—C. Ellis, Dec. 4, 1917................. 3248
Né. 1,250,050—N. W. Thompson, Dee. 11, 1917.......3254
No. 1,250,799—J. W. Coast, Jr., Dee. 18, | re 3262
No. 1,255,714—J.-J. Curran, Feb. 5, 1918............3268
1,273, 966—F. E. Wellman, July 30, 1918.........3278.
No. 1,281,884—M. J. Trumble, Oct. 15, 1918......... 3286
No. 1,285,136—W. A. Hall,. Nov. ‘19, MM 5s ahus cies 3302 -
No. 1,288,711—L. O. Sherman, Dec. 24, 1918... erere 3306
No. 1,295,088—A. F. G. P. J. Von Groeling, Feb.. 18, |
eee ee ee ee Pera ean aie 3318
Wok & po. 3 to 000; Vol. 32, pp. 551 to 1022; Vol, pp. 1083 to 1008;
Vol. IV, pp. 1505 to 1993; Wol. V, Dp. 1995 to 2483: Vol. ¥ ‘DD. 2495 to 3004;
Vol. VIZ, pp. 3085 to 3567.
. 1,345,740—P.
. 1,388,629—J.
. 1,396,999—C.
1,407,619—C.
. 1,428,338—F.
. 1,428,339—F.
; 1 324,983_R. R. : ioaabtonte Dec. 16, 1919....... /.3330
McD. Biddison, et al., July 6, 1920. 3336
W. Coast, Jr., Aug. 23, 1921
Ellis, Nov. 15, 1921 i
M. Alexander, Feb..21, 1922.......3364.
T. Manley, Sept. 5, 1922
yo Manley, Sept. 5, 1922
. 1,449,226—R. Ww. Hanna, et al., Mar. 20, 1923... .3394
. 1,449,227—R. W. Hanna, et al, Mar. 20, 1923 eee! 3402
. 1,462,143—F. T..Manley, July 17, 1923....... . 3410
. 1,488,325—€. P. Dubbs, Mar. 25, 1924....... cs» S416
. 1,506,444—D. Pyzel, Ang. 26, 1924.............. 3424
. 1,585,496—R. C. Holmes, et al., May 18, 1926... . .3428
. 1,597,821—D. Pyzel, Aug. 31, 1926............ .. 3436
. 1,622,737—D. Pyzel, Mar. 29, 1927.............. 3444
>: 1,638,735—L. C. Huff, Aug. 9, 1927.....2........ 3450
. 1,640,202—F. T. Manley, Aug. 23, 1927.......... 3456
9. 1,655,603--R. W. Hanna, Jan. 10, 1936.......... ', 3462 —
. 1,686,654—C. P. "Dubbs, Oct. 9, 1938............. 3468
. 1,740,691—C. J. Greenstreet, Dec. 24, 1929.......3476 -
. 1,765,976—R: A. Halloran, et al., June 24, 1930. . .3486
. '1,883,850—O. Behimer, Oct. 18,°1932............3494
fo..1,891,218—D. Pyzel, Dec. 13,-1932............... 3506
. 1,937,959—L. C. Huff, Dec. 5, 1933........... ,. 3512
. 2,039,797—L. C. Huff, May 5, 1936....... eens 3520
. ‘BRITISH PATENTS.
No. 1706—Carl M. Pielsticker, 1882........ nica
No. 1922—George L. Benton, 1887............... 8527
No. 6466—Carl M. Pielsticker, 1890.................3549
No. 1308—Carl M. Pielsticker, 1891......... ctheakic 3631. +
No. 6545—Hugh E. Fenchelle, 1914..... Weked Pee 3551
No. 15.084—Milton J. Trumble, 1916.................3557
Order allowing certiorari Re ole ans 3587
Vol. 1, pp. 1 to 850; a he Vol. pp. 1023. to 1863
= IV, pp. 1806.to 1993; Vol. V, pp. 1995 to 2493; Vol. PP. 2495 to 3004;
”
i
3
g
:
1238
1239
Testimony of Kenneth G. Mackenzie. . 1023
1511 KENNETH G. MACKENZIE, Westport, Con- ~
necticut : . i
Direct Examination bg Mr. Theiss.
I am assistant to the vice-president of the Texas
Company. I have been with the Texas Company
for nearly twenty-nine years. In 1918 I was con-
_ sulting chemist with the Texas Company and likewise
in charge of its research and control laboratory at
‘Bayonne, New Jersey. I was occupied with the pat-
ent matters of the Texas Company. At that time we
had no patent attorney and one of my duties, although
Lam not a patent attorney, was to see that inventions
made by employees were referred to patent counsel
employed on the outside. - ean
I remember the filing by the Texas Company of
‘an application for patent in the names of Holines,
Manley and Behimer, on or about November 27, 1918,
‘serial No. 263562. About March, 1918, this applica-
1240 -
1241
1241
1242
1243
tion was givén to me by Mr. R. C. Holmes, with the’
request that it be referred to some competent patent
attorney for such preparation as might be further
required and for filing in the United States Patent
Office. The, application was immediately , referred
to Mr. James L. Nesbitt of the legal staff of the
Texas Company, since all patent matters were. in
the charge of our legal department. They employed
the patent attorneys and gave such approval as inight
be necessary for both employment and filing of ap-
plications. | :
DX 599 is the application which I delivered to Mr.
Nesbitt in March, 1918, for forwarding to Mr. John
M. Coit of the firm of Foster, Freeman, Watson &
Coit in Washington. On the first- page of DX 599
_ in my handwriting appears the word ** Applica-
1512 tion’? with part of the letter ‘‘A.’’. The rest
has been punched out. Also in the upper left-
hand corner the letters ‘‘O. K.’’ ;
DX 600 is a letter under date of March 22, 1918,
from myself to Mr. Nesbitt and refers to four cases
of which Case A is the application which I have al-
1024 _ Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
ready identified, namely Holmes, Manley and Be-
chimer. In part, ‘it reads:
1244 ‘It is Mr. Holmes’ desire that these applications ©
be. submitted at once to some patent attorney for
careful inspection ‘and revision. I assume that Coit
would be the best man to-handle this matter. I be-
lieve that these should be-sent fo him at once with -_
the request that he go over them carefully with a
view to broadening, if possible, both the specifications — |
and claims, to the greatest possible extent. |
‘* After he has had opportunity to go over these ap-
plications I will confer with him in Washington to —
discuss the various features with him and establish
the prior art.
‘“‘T expect to be in Houston about the Sth of April, |
when the matter of these applications will be taken -
up. It is Mr. Holmes’ wish that our rights be not en-
-dangered in any way, and: if’ postponing the filing of
these applications until my return might be dangerous,
in Mr. Coit’s opinion, the cases can be filed as soon as
; he gets them in shape.”?
1245. At the time that I received this application A (DX..
099) I read it and I understood it. The application : in
part reads: —
‘Our process embodies a novel circulatory sVs-
tem in which a-ring of oil is constantly maintained
under varying liquid and vapor phases. The oil to be —
treated on entering this ring is subjected to a high
degree of heat, but the time element is so controlled
that there is comparatively little decomposition while’
it is exposed to this external heat, the oil being rapidly .
removed from the heating zone and conducted to the
cracking zone, where without being subjected to ad-
ditional heat, it undergoes a molecular. decomposi-
tion whereby carbon and light products are. formed.
The bulk-of the carbon is removed from the ring by
Withdrawing from the cracking zone portions of the
residual oil. The light products -~coritinne the
1245 1513 cycle, leaving the cracking zone in the form of
_ -, vapor and gas. These vapors and gases are then _
subjected to a reduction in temperature, whereby the
heavier constituents thereof such as kerosene, are
~“econdensed. The condensate is combined with the
' charge of oil entering the heating zone thus complet-
ing the evele. The constituents of the desired vola-
T estimony of Kenneth ‘G. Mackenzie. —— 1025
tility are removed from the ring and iiduiied, The
outlets from the ring are so controlled that the en-
tire system is maintained under a pressure sufficient
to insure the desired molecular transformation.
‘‘Our process is to bé distinguished from those of
the prior art, in which a. ring of liquid residuum is
kept in circulation: 7 © Any residual oil re-
sulting from the cracking operation. will necessarily
- contain a considerable amount of carbon held in sus-
pension in the oil and to circulate such a residue
. through heated tubes is to continually pass into such |
- tubes a large.amount of free carbon. In our system.
we-do not circulate a. residuum, but instead keep the:
residual oil removed from the application of external
heat and-withdraw the heavier portions thereof (which
contain the bulk of the carbon) from the cycle at the |
eracking zone, and continue the cycle by means of the .
vapor generated, which contains the condensable prod-
uct desired and also certain heavier constituents which
~~. are used to complete the cyele. By removing the
heavier residuum from the cycle, we keep the ring ©
free from this source of carbon formation, and since
we conduct the actual cracking in a vessel unexposed
to external heat, we are thus able to effectively re-
move the carbon formed.
@ : r ke * / ae * . e
‘‘In conducting the process with the apparatus il-
lustrated, the oil to be treated is forced through the
charging line 7 under considerable pressure, and -is
. rapidly circulated through the heating coil 1, where. -
it is heated to the desired.temperature. This tem-
perature is generally from’ 50 to 100 degrees higher -
. than the temperature at which it is desired to conduct
the cracking ~< tion, and ordinarily varies from
800 to 900° F. The gil on being circulated throagh
the coil acquires considerable heat, but on account of
. the rapidity of its flow, decomposition is only in the
incipient stages, the oil ‘being withdrawn into ‘the out-
let 9 as cracking develops and is passed into the
‘cracking drum 11 where a constant body of oil is
maintained .at‘ a cracking temperature. ‘The dis-
tributor 9- a serves to discharge the oil into the crack-’
ing drum in.a wide stream, thus. spreading out the
vapors and gases in the stream whereby their heat
‘is diffused throughout the body of oil in the drum.
, |
1026, ee Abstract of tontinnny on Merits.
This heat diffusion is materially aided by using a
| distributor with serrated . The rapid cir-
_ 1245 1514 culation the oil having n suddenly sus- -
pended, and. the oil having entered a chamber
of ample voluiné| the excess heat of the oil operates —
‘to maintain the body of oil at the desired cracking
temperature and .molecular decomposition is car-
ried on vigorously, the higher boiling hydrocarbons
_continually breaking up into hydrocarbons of lower
‘ boiling point. The va ig and gas generated gather
_in the — part of the cracking drum and pass out
through the vapor outlet 13 to the separator 15, where -
there is effected a separation of hy rocarbons of 4
sired volatility from those of less volatility then
sired.. The hydrocarbens of the desired ‘volatility
pass “OH® through the vapor line 16, by which they
are conducted to the condenser 18, where they are
condensed-and the condensate is either intermittently
or continuously allowed to. run into the collecting drum
21.
_ “Phe temperature ‘in the air condenser 15 is such
that the less volatile hydrocarbons are condensed and
dropped into the conduit 17, by which they are con-
ducted to the jet in the charging line. The separator
is preferably somewhat elevated so as to give a con-
siderable head of liquid_in the pipe 17, which prefer-
ably contains a.U bertdas illustrated in order to form
a liquid seal therein. This head of liquid, together
’ with the high pressure at which the oil in the charg-
ing line passes the jet, this pressure being ordinarily
from 50 to 10@ pounds highe r than the pressure in
the.drum, insures ‘that the condensate shall be. con-
stantly drawn into the charging line and forced into
the coil 1. The introduction of this condensate into
the charging line increases the volume of oil in the.
heating..coil thereby accelerating the flow ther. in so
that the coil is swept free from any carbon forma- -
‘tions.. This condensate consists in a type of hydro-
- carbons which when decomposed does not yield any
great amount of carbon so that the oil charge is con-
stantly ‘being diluted with oil capable of being de-
composed into lighter products without the produce
_ tion of large amounts of carbon. This condensate
reaches the jet in a heated condition, preferably at
temperature not materially below its boiling point,
Ee oe
Testimony of Kenneth G. Mackenzie. 1027
so as-to heat the charge of oil entering the heating
coil. The heat cycle formed by the kerosene consti-
tuents enables the maintenance of the proper crack-
ing temperatures in the cracking drum. By inject-
ing this condensate into the heating coil we increase
the volume of oil flowing therein without increasing
the total amount of oil in the system at any given
time. .
1245 1515 DX 601 is a telegram under date of March 27,
1918, which I sent to Mr. R. C. Holmes for the
purpose of advising him that Mr. Nesbitt was sick |
and had not been able to submit the meee to Mr.
‘Coit, and that I was ready to leave for Houston as .
‘ 1246 soon as he directed for a confe . I went te
. Houston and attended .such a conference. I was
there for several days, The decision reached at the
confefencé was that I khould stop in Washington on
| Va way back ond discuss these applications with Mr.
* “Coit. te ,
1247 DX 602 is a letter under date of April 27, 1918,
from myself to Mr. Holmes, which was sent while I
was still in Texas. The letter was mailed from Port
Arthur on the 27th of Apri] and reads, in ae
‘1248 . “*T am planning to stop in Washington Wednesday,
~ and shall leave with Mr. John M. Coit the three appli-
catiqns for patents, as follows: ,
Coil & Drum—Holmes, Manley & Behimer . -
Series of :
Vertical Stills—Holmes & Manley
Horizontal Re-
tort Apparatus-— Manley.
. . 7 . . .e
1249 ‘*After Mr. Coit has had three or four days to go .
over these applications, I will see him again, discuss
the whole matter with him and have him draw them
1 in final form, both as to specifications and claims.
‘opies of the applications, with oaths to be executed,
will then ‘be sent immediatély to each of the ar pli-
eants, as noted above. As soon as these oaths are
éxecuted and returned to Mr. Coit, the applications
can immediately be filed in the United States Patent
: The ‘‘coil and drum” application referred to in the
“letter is DX 599. ,
"1028"
se 1249
‘4250 -
1251
Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
1516 I next called on Mr. C oit, leaving the applica- ©
tions with him. |
DX 603 is a letfer under date of May '-. 1918, from
myself to Mr. James L. Nesbitt, and reads, i in part:
'**T called on Mr.-John M. Coit, in Washington, on
Ww ednesday, the Ist, and handed him three patent ap-
plications as follows :
Case A—Coil and drum—Holmes, Manley and Be-
himer; —_..
Case D—Vertical stile —ticlaies and Manley ;
Case E—Horizontal retort apparatus—Manley.
‘*T requested Mr. Coit to go over these applications
in order that he might familiarize himself with them,
and I will then see him during the coming week at his
‘ earliest convenience and discuss with him. the per-
. 1252
fecting of the applications.
‘Mr. Holmes is very anxious that these applica-
tions be filed at ‘the carliest possible moment and I
therefore took the liberty of leaving them with Mr.
Coit in order. that time ‘might be saved.’ I assume
that vou may wish to confirm. this by letter to Mr.
Coit.”
After Peat Sa i of my ‘ast tnabpientinns had
beén given Mr. Coit by. Mr. Nesbitt, as shown by DX
604 and DX 605, I called upon and conferred with Mr.
- Coit.
DX 606 is a letier under date of May 9, 1918, from
mvself to Mr— Coit, which I wrote asking for a def.
" inite appointment on May 14, 1918. DX 607 is Mr.
Coit’s reply. The purpose of my conference was to
-be sure that the application was not only -properly
drawn but broadlv drawn’ and that the claims w ere as
1954
1255.
1255
broad as the disclosed invention would warrant.
DX 608 is a letter under date of May 31, 1918, from
myself to Mr, Helmes, and reads: .
“Supplementing mv letter to vou'under date of May
20th, giving the result of my conference with Mr.
oit: ; ;
1517: : “‘Mr. Coit is now working on the different ap-
plications of Holmes, Manley and Behimer, but
we will not wish to file these until the Adams matter
is straightened ont. As indicated in my letter, the
principal question at issue is whéther we shall nego--
tiate with Adams on an exclusive ora non- exclusive |
lieense. |
Testimony of Kenneth G. Mackenzie. 1029
‘*T believe we should have Mr. Coit come to New
- York to confer with us, and I should much prefer to -
have you present at this conference if you expect to
return to New York shortly.
1256 ‘*The Adams appeal on his No. 618,011 will be ar-
gued before the Commissioner on the 6th day of June
and I assume we will have some decision by the middle
of July at the latest. * |
a | should be glad of your directions as to how yau
wish me to handle this matter.’’
1257 . The reference to the Adams appeal was to the fol-.
_lowing: Some time in 1914,‘as I recall, the Texas
Company took an option under the inventions of one
Joseph H. Adams. A number of these i inventions had
very early filing dates and in our opinion were very
broad. This one particular: application was one of
‘ his principal applications and was finally issued some
time afterwards after a ‘number of various appeals
_through the Patent Office. :
DX 609 is a letter under date of .June 3, 1918, from
Mr. Coit to Mr. James. L. Nesbitt and was referred to
_ me by Mr. Nesbitt on June 5th with a notation ‘‘Would
like to talk this over with you.’ T talked the matter
over with Mr. Nesbitt. DX 609 reads, in part:
“‘F am enclosing herewith the application papers
which I have prepared in the case of Frederick T.
' Manley, “egy number 21,805, covering the case
. marked 4E* by Dr. Mackinzie, and also the papers in
1258 - the nee of Holmes and Manley, docket number
_ 1208 1518, 21,803, marked case ‘A’. T am sorry for the de-
lay i in "this matter but for a while it was due to
my own engagements and then IT was unable to get
the serv ices of a draftsman.’’
Mr. Coit is now dead.
1260 ° I desired to have a conference in Hee York at
which Mr. Holmes was present for a discussion of
these applications. We had such a conference.
DX 610 is my copy of a letter under date of June 13,
1918, from Mr. James L. Nesbitt to Mr.- Coit. That
letter ‘outlines the conclusions which were reached at
that conference, and reads:
“~s
1261 «Perhaps it may serve a purpose if T state my idea
i]
.of the general conclusions reached. in this morning’s
conference :
‘That you will, after adtion by the Commissioner
1030
1262
1263
Abstract of Testimony on, Merits.
on the Adams application Serial No. 618011, advise
us of the advantage and protection which would be
afforded by the Adams patent and by the claims al-
ready allowed in other pending applications in con-
nection with the installations which we are now.
making.
‘‘That you will determine whether or not there is
such correspondence between the Adams claims and
those of the prepared Manley applications,—so-called, .
now awaiting filing, that an interference would like ly
be declared between them, and that if, in your opin-
ion, such an interference would not likely be declared
then these applications should be filed at once.
>
“That in connection with your adviee concerning.
the advantages of the Adams claims, in relation to our
installations, you will also express’ your own ideas.
as to the particular nature of the interest which we
should seek to acquire from Adams; whether a limited
or exclusive license or purchase.
‘“‘Of course, we would be glad to have you express”
any other ideas which you may have in mind regard-
ing this whole matter and it may be that I have not
covered here all the ground which was gone over thi-
morning but I am giving you my ideas and 1 am
- sending copies of this letter to Mr. Holmes and Mr.
1263
1265
Mackenzie, in order that if there are any doubtful
points as: to what is desired they may be cleared
up. °°
1519 DX 611 is a letter addressed to M r. James I.
’ Nesbitt, signed Foster, Freeman, Watson & Coit,
per Coit, under date of June 15, 1918, which was shown
to me by Mr. Nesbitt. This letter reads:
‘‘T have yonr letter of the 13th instant referring
to the con¢lusions reached at our conference on June
T3th at New York’ and your statement of the matter
agrees with my understanding. I am leaving on a
vacation of ten days or two weeks but will take this :
matter up on my return. By.that time it is probable
that the Commissioner will have rendered his deci.
sion. I will, of course, go into the whole matter.
keeping in, mind the general. purposes referred to in
the interview and will report to you as to any mat
ter which seems pertinent.
“To am enclosing herewith a copy of the revised
< .
«
1266
- 1267
T estimont y of Kenneth G. Mackenzie. ° 1031
amendment prepared in the Adams Case, No. 618, 011.
Shay am filing ‘the original with the Commissioner to-
ay
bx 612 is a letter from Mr. James L: Nesbitt, to
Mr. R. C. Holmes, dated July 23, 1918, with a copy
to myself, transmitting Mr. Coit’s letter under date
of July 22nd, in which he stated: .
‘‘After going over the Adams cases in conneetion -
with the three Manley cases which you left with me
last May, I find no reason for refraining from filing
the Manley cases. While they include .some broad
features covered by some of the claims which. we
have pending for- Adams in the Patent Office, they
nevertheless include matter which is distinguishable
from the Adams construction and process. In other
words, while they may come ‘within and be dom-
inated by the broad claims granted to Adams, ‘that
constitutes no reason why Manley should not pro-
cure patents on his particular differences from what:
Adams has disclosed. I do not believe that: there
will be any interference between Manley and Adams,
since I will endeavor to so dyaw ell of the Manley
claims as to distinguish from Adams. ‘I have here-
tofore sent you two of the Manley cases all ready
for filing,. and I am having the third case writte
out including such claims as T have drawn up.’ ,
After T received this letter, DX 612, the ap-*
1520 plications were’ finally executed, although after .
some delay.
DX 613 is a letter under date of August 27, 1918,
from. myself to Mr. Holmes, pertaining to the coil
and drum application DX 599, and reads:
“*T am eendi ing you herewith application prepared
by Mr. Coit in. the above case, action on which was
held up pending determination as to whether or not
this application might be thrown in interference with
any of the Adams applications. It is Mr. Coit’s
opinion that there is no danger of such a contingency
— so. that I believe the case should now be
““T do not recall whether you: have already seen
this application. I have read it over and have but
two suggestions to make: .
‘‘On page 6 it is stated ‘This temperature is gen-
- erally from 50 to 100° higher ‘than the temperatures *
1032
_A bstract of: Testimony on Merits.
«
-at which it is desited to conduct the cracking opera-
tion, and ordinarily varies from 800 to 900° F.’ It
seems to me, unless we are absolutely sure of our
ground, that nothing is to be gained by such a state-
ment, but that the scope of the patent is restricted
thereby. I diseussed this matter with Mr. Donaldson
‘at Port Arthur but he seemed very positive that
data we had.obtained showed that these figures were
correct. There is always the possibility, -however,
that further experiments may develop other tempera-
tures and differences in temperature. If this should
be omitted, change would have to be made in certain
of the claims which include this temperature differ-
ence and range.
‘On page 9 it is stated that the product usually,
contains from 10%.to 15% of unsaturated bodies.
Here, also, unless we are sure of our ground, I be-
lieve that’ the statement should be omitted. Burton,.
you will recall, made ‘the same mistake in claim-
ing that condensing ‘under pressure gave him less
unsaturated bodies. To be sure, in his case this was —
probably necessary in order. to get his patent, but fur-
ther researches have I believe demonstrated that this
is not altogether true.
“*T should be glad to discuss this matter with you,
should you care to do so, and will also take up the
matter with Mr. Coit next: week if you so desire. .
“The drawing omits the name. of ‘Behimer’ which
of course can be added. T believe it will also be °
1521 necessary to have separate oaths prepared so -
‘that they can be signed respectively in New
~ York, Houston.and-Port Arthur. I will determine this
definitely.’’
After. writing this letter I conferred with Mr.
Holmes. All IT ean recall of the conference was the
two. points which I have raised in my letter which.
I felt unduly restricted the patent, unnecessarily
1270
restricted the patent application. After the confer-
ence I took the- matter up with Mr. Coit,
Our president, Mr. E. C. Lufkin, was vice-chairnian
of the Petroleum War Service Board. And there
were a great many matters in which it was necessary.
for me-to assist him.’ The manager of our lubricating
sales division had been drafted to handle all air-
plane lubrication for the Army which required very
Testimony of Kenneth G. Mackenzie. 1033 /
- frequent trips to. Washinaton: and as well I had
calls ftom the United States Bureau of Mines. This
work took up most of my time during July and
1273
1274
1275
' August,. 1918?
DX 614 is a letter under.date of. September 9, 9, 1918,
from myself to Mr. Holmes, and reads, in part!
‘“‘T saw Mr. Coit’ on Saturday and discussed the
various points in these applications brought up in my
recent interview with you. i
‘“Staleins. Manley & Behimer Application—Coil &
Drum. .
‘On the matter of sanidinae atures Mr. C oit believed”
that nothing was to be gained by inserting specific
temperature. limits, since the. patent would simply
be limited thereby. The only case where temperature
limits are of any assistance is where they might avoid
some other patent. As we know of no patent having
a temperature range, say, outside of 700 to 1000°
F., there is no necessity of our limiting ourselves. —
“He will make the change, eliminating the . per-
centage of unsaturated compounds.
1522. ‘I discussed with him the question of a. . geC-
- ond drum. He stated that he did not believe
this was necessary. If we should claim two drums it
might be possible for an infringer to get around us -
by using one drum. If we show one drum, no infringer
could add extra drums without using this one. drum
at the same time, thus infringing the patent. Mr. Coit
expressed it as. his belief that the addition of one or
more drums would be viewed by the Patent Office and
the Court.simply as additional, manufacturing equip- °
' ment which did net affect-the basic idea of the patent. |
Mr. Coit will put this application in shape and will
forward it for signature together with three separate
(1276 oaths, so that it may be filed as soon as possible.’’.
After Mr. Coit rewrote these applications, I re-
ceived them again.:
DX 615 is a letter under date’.of September 13, ;
' 1918, addressed to me by Mr. H.-A. Thomas, orfe of
77
the attorneys of The Texas Company. At ‘this time -
Mr. ‘Nesbitt was ill, and Mr. Thomas was acting for ~
him and sent the application to me. DX 615. reads::
‘*Herewith T am handing you copy of a letter this
1034
2)
1278
| Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
day eoabived from Foster, Freamen, Watson & Coit,
Washington, D. C., with the enclosures mentioned. I
presume you will desire to check these applications
over before they are signed and sworn to.
' “ After you have finished with them, will you kindly
pass them-on to Mr. Holmes for his signature and
oath, and for the signature and oath of Messrs, Man-
ley and Behimer i in the blank spaces indicated.’’
And attached to that letter is a letter under date of
September 11,.1918, from Coit; which reads:
‘Tam enclosing herewith the application of Holmes,
Manley and Behimer, our docket 21,803 and the appli- |
+ eation of Manley, No. 21,805, which’ I have revised in ©
1278
accordance with the understanding reached with Dr.
Mackenzie at his interview here a few days ago. These
cases should be signed and executed by the in-
1523 ventors as indicated on the papers. You will see
that separate oaths have been prepared for the
different inventors in the joint case, since I under-
stand that they live in separate places. Each of the
joint inv entors, however, should sign the specification .
“on the page containing the Manley vath, above that
1279
oath. ”
DX 616 is a letter of September 24, 1918, from my-
self to Mr. Thomas and reads:
‘Referring to your letter under date of September
23rd: ,
‘*As soon as I have opportunity to go over the
Holmes, Manley: and Behimer applications I shall -
have them-executed by the applicants.”
- 1280
‘Subsequent to that time, I had the applicants sign
these er :
Mr. .F. T. Manley signed his oath i in New York; Mr.
Otto Behimer signed his in Port Arthur, Texas; Mr.
R. C. Holmes signed his in New York.
DX 617 is a letter ander date of October 1, 1918,
from myself to R. C. Holmes and is the letter which
I forwarded to Mr. Holmes with the Holmes, Manley,
Behimer application, as well,as the Manley applica-
tion. I advised Mr. Holmes that Mr. Manley had al-
ready attached his signature to the Holmes, Manley,
- Behimer application, and that it was now in order
1282 -
for the Holmes signature and oath.
b not only discussed thie application with. Mr.
Testimony of Kenneth G. Mackenzie. 1035
Holmes but had directions from him in the matter of
securing Mr. Behimer’s signature. |
DX 618 is a copy of a letfer under date of October
. 22, 1918, from myself to Mr. M. C. Van Gundy,
982 1524 who, at that time, was the chief chemist of the
Port Arthur Laboratory, of The Texas Company
‘where Mr Behimer was located. The letter reads:
‘“T am sending herewith application for patent,
Foster, Freeman, Watson & Coit, Docket No: 21,803,
applied far by Holmes, Manley and Behimer. F would
ask that you have Behimer read this over in your
presence, and ifthe same is in order have him sign—
First, the petition on the front page, gander Mr.
Manley’s signature; Cra
Second, the first oath on blue paper at the back,
under Mr. Manley’s signature; at the top of the oath.
Third, the second oath where it is marked for him
to sign.
1294
‘‘The second oath, you will note, musf’ be sworn to
by a Notary Public. :
“I would request that Mr. Behimer be asked to go
over this'in your office, as I have stated, and that it
be not ajlowed to go out of your possession. As soon
‘as it is signed I would ask that you return it immedi-
ately to me by registered mail, personal cover.”’
The purpose of stating that I didn’t wish the ap-
plication to get out was that Mr. Holmes advised me
that it was of the utmgst importance that strict se- |
crecy be maintained in the matter of the contents of
this — and I consequently arranged to have.
Mr. Behimer sign it in Mr. Van Gundy’s office in or-
der that, since it had arrived by registered mail, Mr.
Van Gundy might immediately return’ it and there.
. might not be any danger of its falling into other hands ©
for inspection. ‘
DX 619 is a letter under date of October Ist, 1918, .
Mr. Van Gundy to myself,.and which I received from
Mr. Van Gundy returning the patent application
which had been executed by Mr. Behimer.
1525 - DX 620 is a letter under date of October 31,
1918, Mr. Otto Behimer to myself. In this letter
‘reference was made in Mr. Van Gundy’s letter and
reads : :
“I have read over patent claim of application 21803
>
a
1036 Abstract'of Testimony on Merits.
and believe it would be a good idea to embody a few
claims relative to Auxiliary Furnace or Furnaces, and
combinations or series of Cracking Chambers. This
coil arrangement fer treating the Charge and Back
Trap is the feature that is sure to make the batteries
of two or more such stills such as we have been ex-.
- perimenting on at West Side Pressure Still a success.
It seems to me that it would greatly enhance the value
_ of this patent to make such claims as are necessary to
make this patent extend to arly arrangement of Crack-
ing drfims and any Auxiliary Furnaces such /as are
necessary to maintain the temperature in the single
’ Cracking Chamber or series of Cracking Chambers at
the desired Cracking temperature. After the stills
-have once reached working eonditions, this desired
temperature (800° F. or nearabout) can be maintained
with a very low furnace temperature. In a series of
Cracking Chambers, it might require from 900-1100°
I’. furnace temperature but this is'at a perfectly safe /
temperature to preserve the strength of the iron and
prevent hard sealing of the carbon.’”
1298 DX 621 is a letter under date of November 12, 1918,
from myself to R. C. Holmes, informing Mr. Holmes
that the application had been signed by the three ap-
plicants, and unless he had ‘further thoughts it would
be sent to Mr. Coit for filing. Mr. Holmes returned the
letter to me with his approval on the sidé, and the ap-
plication-was sent to Mr. Coit for filing. The long-
~ chand ‘note on the side of the letter is by Mr. Holmes
and reads :: ; ;
1299- ‘*Mackenzie. I have no suggestions in the matter
11/16/18 R. C. H.”’ eae: ;
1300 _. After -this application had been sworn to by the
three applicants, the. application was filed.
1300 1526 DX 622 is a letter under date of November 18,
“1918, from myself to Mr. H. A. Thomas. and
reads : _ gud: pe
1301 ‘‘T am sending you herewith application for a pat-
ent of Holmes, Manley and Behimer; Foster, Free-
man, Watson .and Coit docket No. 21,803. :
‘*T should be glad to have: you forward ‘this to
_ Messrs. Foster, Freeman, Watson and Coit, request- -
ing them-to file immediately and also have them pre-
pare three copies of the application withdrawing, as
|
1302
1303.
1304
1304
| Testimony of Kenneth G. Mackenzie. 1037
filed, one to be sent to Mr. R. C. Holmes, one to Mr.
F. T. Manley and one to myself.”’ . 0
_ The Texas, Company operated a vapor phase proc-
ess. at Bayonne in 1916 and 1917. I cooperated’‘in that
operation.: The operation was in the direct charge of
Mr. Louis deFlorez representing the Motor Petrol
Company, the owners of the American patents and
patent rights. ae
These four units were installed: at the Bayonne lab-.
oratory, of which I was in charge, so that I had gen-
eral supervision, although I was not located at Bay-
onne. I understood, at the time, the operation of these
units there installed.
In general, the sketch attached to DX 623 for ident..
represents the layout of one of the four Hall process
-unit#installed at Bayonne. Oil was drawn from the |
stor@ge tank G through a pump, through a pressure .
stabilizing tank for the purpose of killing the pulsa- _
tions of the pump, then through a filter, then through’ | ~
a meter, then through an oil heater which, as I recall,
did not heat, and then into a-coil of one-inch tubes
suspended vertically in a furnace in the form of hair-
pins with connecting U-tubes at the top. Leaving this
coil of one-inch tube the pipe then went into a larger
tube shown here as an 8-inch diameter, ‘which is
1527 my recollection, and from there into an open.
cylinder. It entered the top of the cylinder, the
product passing out through the bottom into a second
cylinder which contained baffles which were. perfor-.
ated. They are-shown here as trays, but as trays we
usually think of more complicated fractionating ~
means. They were simply plates containing rather
large holes at the top but not occupying the space in-
dicated. ae :
There was a coil for cooling the vapors, The vapors
passed from the top of the second vertical chamber
to the bottom of a fractionating column which con-
tained fractionating trays with what we know as bub-
_ ble caps, a liquid level being maintained on each tray
- /through which the vapors bubbled to secure fractiona-
~ tion or separation of the heavy material from the
lighter. ! ‘ ;
The heavy material was drawn from‘the bottom of
this fractionating column through cooling cojls into
1038 ; Abstract of Testimony on Merits,
1305 separate storage. The vapors were carried off from
the top through a condenser, then into a separator sep- *
arating the liquid condensed from the more or less
- permanent gases and light vapors. The light vapors
_--were then taken to a compressor where they were
- compressed, and the compressed vapors were kom-
mingled with the liquid ‘separated out in this ‘separa- .
tor. — : .
I might say that beyond the soparattr-there was a
Atorage tank.of comparatively small size for the liquid
_condensate which was picked up by a pump so that
‘finally the compressed gases a light vapors and the
condensate or liquid were mixed together under high
pressure, carried through further coolers and into
: storage. . .
1305°1528 A very small amount of very heavy oil was
withdrawn from the vertical cylinder or cham-
ber that Ihave referred to which had the trays and
the cooling coil in it. The percentage I do not recall
but it was practically infinitesimal. ‘
_ The material that was withdrawn irom the bubble
1306 ‘tower was called light residue. » .
The pressure, my recollection is, at the inlet, of
somewheres around 100 pounds, was just sufficient
. to force the oil through the tube. There was.no valve
at the outlet end. of the tube. It was simply to over-
' comeé the friction of the “charge nestinn Wena. The
temperature for cracking to gasoline was fairly close
to 605 degrees Centigrade which, as Irecall, is some-
wheres around 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. There were .
four of these units. It is my recollection, although I
‘have not seen. any of these reports for some time, that
we charged three gallons a minute per converter.
During the operation of this unit, I made reports
from time to time based upon data contained in log
sheets. which were made: during the regular course
‘of the operation by the shift operators under mv
' general supervision. .
DX 624. to 635, inclusive, are letters and reports
written and prepared by ‘me with respect to this opera-
‘tion over the period from December, 1916 to Jan-
uary, 1918.
1811 DX 626 in part reads:
‘‘Run 24. I would call your attention, however,
| particularly to Run 24, on which we ran water white-
1311
——_
-
= %
Testimony of Kenneth G. Mackenzie. - _ 1039
a, ° all four oy continuo for 2
peri ourteen days. I am a — erewit
a of. this 14-day run, feauiet with averages
of the oa * our converters and one con-
— averages on tésts of the products pro-
‘Il am also sending you, under separate cover, a
section af the bend of one of the converter tubes,
taken from the hottest part of the furnace, together
with a similar section taken from a new tube, for
comparative purposes. You will see from this
1529 that the mn deposit is-practically nil: It ©
should be stated that tube was used not
only for the fourteen days’ tinuous running, but
also for all of the shorter runs in which Converter
#2 was used, the records of which you already have
or which are enclosed herewith. There does riot seem _
to be any doubt, in my mind, that either prime white
-pletely precludes the use of any pet
or water white can be run through this ~ pe
for a very considerable length of time without any
—, carbon formatiop.’’ . :
X 628 in part states:
‘Carbon Formation. fact that the oil to be
cracked in the Hall Process must.be vaporized, com-
adem product
wrich leaves q residue on evaporation. Thus either
a burning oil distillate or a carefully distilled paraffin
gas oil must be used. ey a .
‘What Is_The Hall Process. Bearing in mind the
installation at Bayonne, the descriptions’of operation
- given by Hall and others and 4he patents, the question
may well be asked, What is the Hall Process? The
Process, is actually carried out in Bayonne may he
said to be: y
(a) Passing oil through a coil of tubes. under
pressure while subjecting it to a heat of about 600°C.
(b) Passing the vapors from the 1-inch tube into
an 8-inch tube. =, . ~
(c) Passing the vapors from the 8-inch tube into
‘three dephlegmators, the first of which is empty.
In these dephlegmators the heavier oils are con,
densed out.
(d) Condensing by ‘a water-cooled condenser as
*
1040. | s sucirc of Testimony on Merits.
_ >> much as possibe of the light fractions, . leaving the
~. “third deph legmator. |
. (e) Compressing the lightest gases . arid va oa ;
not condensed .and after compression mixing the
under, pressure, with the distillate from the water ae
condenser.
(f) Finally, condensing this mixture ‘under pres:
= sure.’’
1315 1530, DX 630 in part. reads: : \ |
‘*We have tried out two methods of refining
of the Hall Motor. Spirit. .
‘‘The first method is the one proposed ty. the
Motor Petrol: Company. ‘It cons ints, in passing the
vapors through a column of Fullers Earth of 60'mesh,
. the column or columns being jacketed so that they
may be heated, and excessive. condensation of the
vapors in the earth prevented. Our experiments have
’ thus far-not given any conclusive results. It is true .
that this treatment. not only decolorizes, but also im-
proves the odor of the product; but whetler this ;
could be made economical, or whether the earth wil}
' beeome too rapidly exhausted, remains to be: seen.
_. ‘The. other method is a simple acid treat. “Mr.
‘Detwiler-is somewhat familiar with this since we were
working on. it when he was at Bayonne. ‘We found in
' preliminary experiments that ordinary concentrated
sulfuric acid was not satisfactory. Not only was the
reaction violent, with excessive heating, but the acid
. stayed suspended as very minute particles for a long
‘period of time, during. which periods sulfur dioxid
gas was continually evolved. By- making a mixture
of 50% concentrated sulfuric acid and 50% water
the heating up was materially reduced: ‘The sludge
separated readily, and after neutralization with - |
carbonate of soda the product could be. steam-stilled, ‘
leaving a water white distillate greatly improved in ° - «
odor. The principal difficulty with this method was — oa
that there has been an attendant loss of the very
- volatile constituents, due to heating up. It might be
_ possible to get 'a product of sufficient purity by treat-
ing the heavier ends and then combining the very
lightest material, either without treat or with a: ‘less
severe treat: - 7 ig
1316 DX 632 ‘in part reads: ;
; “Run #101 (June 6, 7. and 8). On this run we used
+
Testimony of Kenneth G. Mackenzie. 1041
Paraffin Gas Oil, with steam in the cracking coils
in order to see, if possible, whether the use of steam
would prevent the excessive carbon deposits which
we had found in the. dark red paraffin Gas Oil such
as we are shipping regularly from Bayonne. It was.
_necéssary to.use steam from the boilers, which never
_ had a pressure of. over 100 lbs., with the result that
1316
the ‘feed of steam into the tubes was irregular and -
our yields consequently varied. The total was also
low. We found by the use of steam that the odor
1531. was ‘very much improved and, that the. unsat-
_ urated, as showed by absorption and -stlfuric
acid, was 10% to 20% lower than on both the residue .
and distillate samples. =
a \ ‘ | oe }
| & ; ‘‘Summary.
- ‘Carbon. During the’runs above recorded we had
no trouble with carbon formation in the tubes. In
Run #101 we were using Paraffin Gas Oil without
redistillation, together with steam. On the. recom-’ .
mendation of the Legal Department, however, it was
.. necessary to. conclude this test on June 8th. Up to
that time there had been no. appreciable carbon
trouble. Whether steam would eliminate the carbon
accumulation from dirty Paraffin Gas Oil remains: to
be determined.
_ will givé a product with a better odor.
“Use of Stedm. We have proved, from the limited
experiments which we have made, that steam, when .
‘mixed with the oil vapor in the cracking tube, will
reduce the. percentage of unsaturated ~~ and
ur experi-
ments were not of sufficient duration to be quanti-.
> tative.
‘We have further shown that even the introduction
of steam into the vapor line, between the converter -
coils and the dephlegmator, will appreciably sweeten -.
the resulting product. This is somewhat unexpected
since we have believed that the possibility. of any
chemical reaction in this-tube was slight. This fact -
may have a bearing on some of the Hall patents in
which a supplementary cracking reactionNis claimed |
in this vapor tube. . 2 ee
‘*Refining With Fullers Earth. Because of the fine
1042 .
“Abstract of Testimony on. Merits.
| grace of Fullers Earth at Bayonne, our ex eriments
' proved. thereby. f still believe it may
1317
refining the lightest hydrocarbons, and passing
them through Palare Earth were not particularly
successful, although the odor was ng Sagoo im-
possible to
use this: method for refining the lightest constituents
and work will be continued on it.
‘‘ Unsaturated. a, The results obtained .
on these runs confirm our past experience that: the _
percentage of | pene don hydrocarbons in the
naphtha distallate is almost 100% greater when crack-
ing with Paraffin Gas Oil than when cracking | kero-
sene.’
. DX 634 in part reads:
1532 ‘Conclusions: As iy the Burton ‘Prices, we
- finally condense in the Hall Process under pres-
. sure. This gives us a product containing considerable
compression gasoline, which is very difficult to hold.
We have, moreover, a disadvantage as compared with »
the pressure still product, in that we have a. larger
percentage of unsaturated hydrocarbons, and .there- .
' fore a greater tendency to heat up on acid treating,
‘+ method of procedure, whereb
causing still further loss of the compression gasoline.
For this reason I am -convinced that the present —
all of the naphtha, i in-
cluding the compression’ gasoline, is recovered in one
eut, will not be satisfactory in practice. I conclude
this assuming that we will use an acid treat for re-
fining. The Hall people propose the use of Fullers
«. Karth which .would to a certain extent, possibly, cut
-dewn the losses. Work. which we did at Bayonne,
however, was not satisfactory, the Fullers Earth be:ng
.- apparently very rapidly exhausted. The next pos-
sibility was the use of Fullers Earth for the very
light product, acid treating the heavier.ends. We will
work further on this_as soon as we finish our run oni
’ Paraffin’ Gas Oil,~ strictly ee to the Hall
1318
‘method.’’. -”
DX 635-in1 part reads:
‘‘}-ain transmitting herewith a record of the Hall
Proeess for the month of October, November and
December, 1917. .
‘*October. | |
‘The October figures are divided into two parts ;
the total is ) ae given, the first covering the _— :
. throughout this month wit
‘what less than 900 gallons of Prime White which it
was necessary to use in an emergency.
Testimony of Kenneth Gi, SMedheunie. | 1043
up to October 12, in which distilled paraffin gas oil
was used, the other period covering from the 12th to
- the end of the month, in which light yellow paraffin gas.
oil was used. The total converter. hours ‘for this month’
were 1488 against a possible maximum of 2976.
“x ovember.
es. ‘Light yellow pared gas oil was ‘used
the exception of some-
ae Observations.
. “The most important observations which we have
1318.
made over this period are as follows:
1533 ‘‘1. ‘ It is not possible with any grade of par-
-’ affin gas oil we have yet tried to get as saturated
a product, dr, on the average, as high a yield as with
Prime White kerosene.
«62. A properly distilled paraffin gas oil, such as
the product which we have been running since the 8th.
of December and testing as follows, may be used with-_
out appreciable carbon formation in the tubes ov era
long period of time. ms ad rod
“3. The light yellow paraffin gas oil mentioned
above is a much better material to crack than the re-
distilled. paraffin gas oil obtained from the usual
stocks which we market from Bayonne. This is
shown by the following distillations :’
The purpose of. operating this process at the
Bayonne plant of The Texas Company was primarily .
- to determine whether it was a‘process which we would
1319,
1319 .
or would not wish to install in our refineries. We had —
an agreemént as to licensing rights under this | process.
I cannot remember all of the details as to-our options, _
i, we finally purchased the-Hall patents.
1534 Cross-Examination by Mr. Blenko.
The installation of the Hall unit at Bayonne began
about the spring of 1916. The first run was made
"1320 November 23,-1916. At that time the industry was
1321 interested in, racking and the Texas Company was"
1044 Abstract af Téstimony on Merits,
actively: engaged in a substantial amount of research -
work attempting to develop. cracking processes for
use in its plants. Penne ; |
' The first runs with the Hall process at Bayonne
were made with kerosene as a charging stock. Later,
a paraffin gas oil was used. The kerosene charge was
ahout 42 Baume gravity; the paraffin gas oil charge
was about 36 Baume. oe aes
- 1322. Attempts were also made to crack the light residue
produced from kerosene and paraffin gas oil runs in
the Hall unit but experience showed it could not be ©
successfully put back through the coils. DX 627 is an
accurate summary of the runs made in the early‘ part
‘of the experimentation with the Hall process. This
report shows that from February 19th to February 26,
. 1917, The Texas Company ran the Hall process on a
light residue produced from running kerosene, but
1323 found it to be utterly unsuitable for rerunning, be-
cause the coils very quickly plugged up with coke. The
light residue had tobe distilled, to remove a small
amount of the light residue which would produce
coking in the coils before it could be rerun. _
‘Attempts were made to use the Hall process to
- produce benzol and toluol for ammunition purposes. -
> Nal shows this was from March 7 to March 30,
1325» The Hall process was always a once-through oper-_.
. ation unless you wished to reprocess. some of. the
products for recharging. It was not recycling. The
character of the light residue was such that it could
not be recycled. It could only be used in another
1535 run at some subsequent date, after distillation, -
to remove the bottoms.
1326 . Neither was-it physically possible to recycle the
light residue inthe Hall operation, because the equip-
ment was not set up for recycling. ; =,
The following excerpts from DX 627, relative to the
a experiments at Bayonne, correctly states the
acts, ee
. | “Light Residue” _
‘ **The chronological record on the running of light
residue is as follows: —
€ - . e * _
‘This excessive carbon formation occurred, as far
Testimony. of iteanetle G. Mackenzie. 1045
as we could: judge, at the point in the coils where the
oil was completely vaporized, and might be termed —
carbon of vaporization rather than carbon of crack-
ing. In other words, this residue will not distil com-
pletely without leaving a residue of carbon or coke.
~~ “Such. being the case, it was necessary to distil this
, *, 90% off and leaving 10% bottoms whi
residue and this was done, running 5 eomery ged
would be
available for fuel oil but could be worked up into other
es products."*
1327
DX 629 shows that when using paraffin gas oil:
charge, it was found impossible to run longer than 72
hours because of carbon formation in the tubes in the
furnace. The paraffin gas oil which ssibly was dark
red in color first had to be distilled t to a pale yellow
color in order-to secure satisfactory operation. Kero-
sene could be run successfully.
‘The following excerpt from DX 629 correetly states
the facts:
“We found, however, that it was impossible to ran”
on this paraffin gas oil longer than about 72 hours,
when so much carbon was formed -in‘’ certain tubes |
in the front of the furnace that it was necessary .to
shut down the converter and clean out the tubes.
The carbon formed in this case was, very similar, and
occurred in the same tubes, as that found in running
the residue from kerosene without. redistillation
- 1536 ‘and is, in my mind, entirely. carbon of va riza-
1328 .
"4309
tion rather than carbon of cracking. This is
confirmed, as will be seen below, by the runs on the
distilled paraffin gas oil, on which we at the time
of writing have been running seven days without any
appreciable: carbon formation.’’
Experimentation on the Hall apparatus continued ,”
almost without interruption up to the beginning of
1920.. The plant was then closed down and subse-
quently dismantled.
Mr. deFlorez, the representative of the Motor Pet-
rol Company holding the American patents of William
A. Hall, and ‘I, supervised the Hall operation at
es Bayonne.
The Hall process was sbanieiie’ because .the cost
was too high, which was due entirely to excessive
formation of fixed gases. The charging stocks used
were expensive.
1046 . Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
1330. ‘*Q. Your.own experimental work showed that the
color and- the odor could ‘be removed from the Hall
_ product, is that correct? -
‘+ **A. Oh, it could be satisfactorily treated; yes.’’ ,
The gasoline from the Hall process and that pro _
dueed in the Burton process would both perform
equally well in a*car. Under some conditions the
Hall process gasoline would behave better than the |
1333 PX 636 isa letter from me to R. C. Holmes, dated
/
7
j
May 5, 1917, headed ‘‘Hall Process Construction
Expense,’’ setting forth the expenses incurred in in-
‘ stalling the Hall process at Bayonne as $64,685.18.
1334 According to a notation by R. -C. Holmes on an
accountant’s tabulation taken from the files of The
1336 Texas Company, entitled ‘‘Bayonne Hall-Process, Re-
-sult Operations November 22, 1916, to June 1, 1917,""
PX 637, the cost of gasoline is 68¢ per gallon. The
processing costs of the Hall -process-are $66,419.91;
the return $34,784.16; and the deficit $31,635.75.
/ 1338 PX 637 shows that 7.4% of the charge oil in .
1537 the Hall process was converted to gasoline.
1339 - In some of the later runs of the Hall process,
steam was injected into the heating coils with the oil.
Coking in the Hall vapor phase process took place
1341 at the poinf in the coil where the material became
substantially all vapor. The coke formed at just one -
particular point in the coil. This appears from page
23 of my final report DX 628 and my supplemental
report DX* 631. | fie ty sae |
he Hall process was installed by The Texas Com-
pany ag an experiment to determine its commercial
feasibility.- The unit was of # commercial size rec-
ommended by Hall. If the Hall process had worked
out The Texas Company would have installed quite
a number of the Hall units in its plant. —_ a
i The Hall process was finally dropped because o
1342 the high cost. The apparatus was torn down and
never reinstalled again as a Hall process. __
Behimer Application—-DX 599: The Behimer ap-
plication was originally the Holmes, Manley and Be-
himer application, but ultimately issued as a Behimer
' patent. e Behimer application was referred to as
; the Coil and Drum case. I had no. contact with the
Te ining of Kenne th G. Mackenzie, 1047
. patent work of The Teake Company after January
1919. .
1343. - The law department of The Texas Company listed
the Behimer application as Holmes, Manley, and
Behimer, with Mr: Coit’s docket number 21803.
1 did riot intend-te-everlook any merition, in direct -
_examination, of my discussion with Mr. Coit on May .
__1844 14, 1918, of supposed -confiet-with the application_of ——
J oseph H. Adams. The Adams applications were being.
prosecuted by Mr. Coit and: The Texas Company
had arrangements. to have access to.the Adams
1538 applications. Mr. Coit was attorney for both
i the Adams applications and the Holmes,’ Man- —
ley and Behimer ‘application. Subsequently, . The
Texas Company acquired the Adams’ patents. The
1346 Texas Company sued Warner-Quinlan in 1925 on one -
of the Adams patents. The — patent which was
sued en*was the one—which- ieation fornr
and was being handled by Mr. “it at the time that it
was decided to withhold the filing of the Behimer case.
~ 1349 PX 638 consists of Patent 1,428,388 to Frederick .
T. Manley; Patent 1,462,143 to Frederick T. Manley ; ie
Patent 1 428, 339 to Frederick = Manley.;. and Patent~—_ _-
1,640, 202 to Frederick T.:Manley, all assigned to The — .
Texas Company. All, these Saint were filed
in the years 1917 and 1918.
1351 I distinetly remember having seen one or two ver- .
tical still ‘cases applied for by Mr. Manley.
Hall Process, -D Dx 626: . The end point of the water
1352 white kerosene employed as a charging stock in the -
Hall process was 548° F. and was satisfactory.
DX ‘631:. The charging stock in-the Hall process,
—**Distilled Paraffin Gas Oil,’’ had an end-point which. :
- ran from 564 to 620: This stock was satisfactory.
1353 Gas Oils having an end-point of 710 and 690 respec-
tively were found unsuitable as charging stock for the
Hall process.
DX 632: The end point of the. wiidistilled light
1354 residue from the Hall process was 678: T assume this
. Yresidue: would coke the tubes very badly. ° \
1355 Light residues having end points in: “tho \neighbor-
hood of 575 might fall into the standard fraction
known as kerosene, but. would not be particularly
good kerosene because of the high end point.
1355
ee
Abstract: of Testimony on Merits:
1539 Redirect Examination by Mr. Theiss.
I have tried to puzzle out what the blending stock
with a yield of 11.16 shown on PX 637 was. Blending
stock in general is a product which ‘reqiires a small
amount of a very volatile product such as natural
gasoline to give it the right distilling range. I assume:
that is the reason since they appraise that on the mar-
ket at 12 cents and the gasoline at 16.- I would as-
sume that was a part of our product in that operation.
Of course, I have not seen these figures before. I
didn’t know of their.existence, and have no idea how
they were determined.
If suitable for blending Ww ‘ith natural gasoline, the —
___ blending steek plus the gasoline would be more nearly
~; correct as a yield than the yield that I gave for gaso-
line alone on that operation: I don’t know at all how
-the thing was figured out or what they concluded
1358
was gasoline or blending stock. The record does, not
show who prepared PX 637.
Any temperature at all below 605 Centigrade, which
is 1121 Fahrenheit, is practically no cracking or gives
very little cracking. -It seems to be at least as applied
to kerosene a more or less critical point. We used
that temperature in craeking for gasoline, but if we
_ wanted to produce gas for mustard gas, or tolulol for
1359
1359
-the temperature had little effect on the clean
explosive, it was necessary to go to a higher tempera-
ture. In order to crack I think we went: as high as.
735° Centigrade. As we increased our temperature
we would not have to clean our stock. Apparently
ated of
the stock.
_ Asfar as we could ditermine this carbon de-
1540 posit was left. on the evaporation of the oil
rather than as a result of cracking. ~,
We did not make very long runs even in our: mines
' for the Ordnance Department in determining what
could be done to the benzol or tolulol or in our work |
with the warfare service in producing the maximum
_amount of ethylene for mustard gas manufacture. .
They were all of comparatively short duration. The
Anderson-Prichard ‘case referred to was A case in
which The Texas Company was suing under the
.Behimer patent.
_ Testimony of Ben R. Schneider. : 1049
~ 1541 BEN R, SCHNEIDER, Winchester, Mass. :
ae it ee pa °
_ Direct Examination by Mr. Neuman.
‘2122 = 1 entered the employ of The Texas at the Port Ar-
2123 thur Refinery in late May or early June, 1916. I was
-in that employ until late summer or early fall of 1917. .
‘The first part of the time I spent there, was in -the.
_ drafting room ‘on drafting work. The latter -part of.
the period I spent there on outside engineering work.
2124 - After a tracing was completed it was checked for
accuracy, details, entered in the tracing record, dated
as of the date on which it was entered and eg wand
and thé same date entered on the tracing: The tum-
ber which was placed upon the tracing was procured
from the tracing record and they. were taken in nu-
merical order as the tracings were finished. i
The date entered in the tracing record and upon
the completed tracing would be the date of. the com-
'. pletion’ of the tracing. ,
2125 - I made the original tracing 1703-Y, DX 669, and
most of the printing in the title box was placed there °
. by me. Fhe 12-and the 16 on date 12-7-16 are my
2127 figures. I don’t know about the 7. There has. been a
change made, and I don’t know anything abaut it. ‘I
do not reeall what number I originally placed in this
' box in connection with the numerals 12 and 16. |
2128 DX 733 is a recérd of all the tracings made in the
Port Arthur drafting room. It shows the number-of—
’ the tracing, the date on which it was made or com-
pleted, the title, the scale, the size of the drawing and
dates of amy revisions that may have been made at a
\.\ later time. . :
- 212851542 Tracing No. 1703 is indicated on this. tracing
record, and according to the tracing record, 1703:
was eompleted on’ 12-4-16. In view of the tracing rec-
ord I am now enabled to state that I originally placed
. the date of December 4, 1916 in the lower box on
— tracing 1703. : ; ee Se,
- 2129 No date appears opposite 1703, but.a check mark ~
’ appears opposite 1703; the check mark is just a ditto
« mark, being the same date as the date shown above,
2130 and the preceding date is 12-4-16. The notation ‘‘ High
pressure still experiment 2000’’ is in my handwriting. .
_ 00
2131
Abstract of T estimony an Merits.
The date 1-29-17 appears in connection with the
rinted word ‘‘ Revised’’ in the box in the lower right.
nd corner. There was quite a discussion concern- -
ing whether the end of this trap should be < oral
or welded; there was some question whether welding
would be safe for a high pressure still, and we finally
changed it to a riveted construction rather than ‘a
welded construction.. This constituted She revision. —
' The changes I made in connection with the revision
— re: - Under ‘‘Specification’’ for -2-inch, 2-foot zero
. 2132
» 2133
- 2133
2134
diameter drum, there is an erasure shown on the draw-
ing and the word ‘‘Riveted’’ is printed-in. After that —
sentence there are the two words in parentheses, ‘‘See |.
below,’’ which I then added. _I added the word ‘‘Riv-
eted’’ and the parenthetical matter. And that note,
‘*See below’’ refers to the two last sentences under
‘‘Specification’’ for 2-foot ‘zero diameter drum and °
covers the rivet spacing specifications for the dished
head of.the drum.
It was always our practice. to enter the revision
date in the tracing record.
Those figures 1-29-17, appearing under the
1543 cotumn ‘‘Revised,’’ in DX 733 are definitely in
my handwriting. I wouldn’t know whether un-
derneath there there were some other figures at one
time.
The job of the prepatation of the DX 669 was
__handed over to me directly by the head of the drafting
~ department, Mr. Higgins, who issued all jobs to be
. done. The ore person I know distinctly that I worked
2135
with in connection with the preparation of the draw-
ing, was Mr. Rehimer. Of course, I worked with the
chief draftsman as well.
1544 he eae by ue. Hall. - «
2136 DX 669 is a tracing made on Wainiiliaie 4,1916. Re-
2137
visions on this tracing were made on January 29, 1917
as shown by the tracing records. .
* 3853
.
.
3854
]
Testimony of Walter H. Elliott. 1051
1545 WALTER H. ELLIOTT, 17 Priscilla Avenue,
Tuckahoe,.New York: — . | -
| Direct Examination by Mr. Neuman.
I am assistant to the manager of maintenance and.
construction, refining department, Texas Company.
I entered the employ of The Texas Conipany at .-
Port Arthur in October, 1916. At that time, I was
engaged as draftsman. I stayed there as a drafts-
man until March, 1919. ‘I became chief engineer
about January 1, 1923. Prior to that time,.I had
been chief draftsman. I remained as chief engineer _
at Port Arthur Works until June 1, 1926.
As chief engineer I was in charge of the engineer-
ing department, the men, the personnel, the records ©
and the engineering activities. The drafting depart-
ment was a part\of the engineering department. I
supervised the drafting activities, the design and the
layout and the general direction of the preparation
of the drawings and the keeping of the recérds and
the files ‘and the system used in the drafting depart-
ment as well as my duties outside.
At Port Arthur from 1916 until 1926 it was the - |
' practice when a drawing was laid out and drawn
3855
3856
up to assign it a number, which was taken from the
tracing record,. and the corresponding title to the
drawing was recorded in this tracing—record, and-
then it was blueprinted and sent out to the parties
interested and then it was filed in its respective place.
_ We had a rather large vault, in which there were
1546 cabinets made purposely to hold the drawing, -
with thin drawers in which they were laid out,
and it was subdivided \according to the classification
of the particular type of work, i. e., crude stills or
pressure stills or lubricating department. Then the.
drawings were filed under these -general classifica-
tions according to. number. - Drawings were
1547 also kept by the draftsmen in their drawing -
tables in which there were drawers. The trac-
“ings or drawings at the Port Arthur drafting depart-
ment while I was chief engineer ran into thousands.
The practice at Port Arthur relative to keeping
1052
3858
3859
son about March, 1926. Mr.
Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
records of blueprints was that we had a blueprint
record book in which there were serial numbers, and
as the blueprints were made they were recorded in
this book and a corresponding number placed on the
blueprint, and it was indicated in ‘the record as to
who the print was sent to, and the date, and so on.
We generally kept that blueprint record, probably,
for a year or eighteen months, or something like that,
and then destroyed them. The records were too.
voluminous ard accumulated too fast. ae
I met Mr. John S. McCarthy through Mr. ‘Donald-
Denahdeon brought. Mr.
McCarthy over and said that they wanted to search
for a tracing that. had been missing, and so I accom-
panied ‘them to the vault and showed them the gen- :
eral location, aceording to the system-that they had,
where: they woud likely locate this or where they
should look for this particular tracing. They came
back later on and made another searth. On this
second occasion Mr. Mace was there, Mr. Donaldson
and Mr. McCarthy. They came into the office and
I took them out to show them where the records were
kept. and indicated to them. the general procedure.
Mr. Mace said he wanted to make a very thorough —
seareh of the whole vault, more or less turn it upside
down, in an effort to endeavor: to locate this tracing, -.
so I went cut and authorized them to go ahead with |
_the searcli on that basis. They were there for several
| days. + I showed them the ‘cabinets where the
1548 drawings were kept-atid then showed rolls of.
tracings and old drawings that were up on top
of the cabinets. I further said that they might look
_ through the draftsmen’s desks to be sure that they
weren't, by chance, in any’ of their. desks.
“1549 Cross-Examination by Mr. Blenko.
The tracing records were kept by numbers and re-
corded itt the tracing record’ book and. were entered.
As the drawings were made they were assigned the .
next number, and the size was indicated by the prefix
of a letter. As the tracings were completed they were
assigned numbers in serial order, consecutively. The
earlier numbers would indicate that that drawing was
‘made. earlier, but that is not necessarily so, -
3861
Testimony of Walter H. Elliott. : 1053 .
ractice was to the number first and if
Out prectice was to ses we should find for any _
reason hat we bat to gv back and ead to er oleh
3862
orate on it, it may be that the draftsman would assign
a different title and a different name to the print, and
ieey might then assign another number to the draw-
7 itho it was started or worked on prior to the
et eke ses gree bm and on Se old numbers ——
as or r drawings as a
— t a
We a practice of voiding drawings, as a rule,
when they were traced over. If another drawing had ~
been ae and traced over we voided that. A
vary tana | to the number of that dra
in the tracing reeord would be appropriately
The practice was to change the title to correspond to
that sauer of the new drawing. The tracing record
was the only official record of the drawings prepared
‘ in the drawing room. Whether all of them were en-
tered in the same-record ‘depends on the nature of the
drawing as to what it was intended fo cover.
1550 For example, we made a practice of making a
* lot of miscellaneous sketches. In that case, there
may be just a sketch prepared and given out, and
8863 there might be no number assigned to it. The trac-
3864
ing record was the official record of drawings which
had reached such finality that a tracing number had
ben assi to them. The nambers thus assigned
remained on the records as identification of that par-
ticular drawing although occasionally it was neces-
sary to make changes in this record.
In such cases the record of the old drawing was
not necessarily preserved. The tracing record was
preser.ed. As a general rule, the tracing record
which was preserved would give the key as to the
original drawing, both by number, title, date and date
of revisions, with the exception of the ‘changes which
might possibly be made later on, that is, when the
substance of the. drawing was sufficiently changed
it was sometimes given a new title and a new number,
and then the previous drawing number or tracing.
3865 number which was assigned to that was stricken from
the book, and the draftsman kept a record of that
. 1054 | Abstract of Tettunony on Merits.
v.
number, and as and when new : drawings were pre-
pared he. then assigned that. old naman to a new
= drawing.
1551 JOHN S. MeCABTEY, Cliffside . Park, New |
é . Jersey: ;
Cod
Direct meen Mr. Neuman.
3844. IT am a member of the firm of Schwarz, Hughes
. _& MeCarthy, patent engineers and inv estigators. For
the past twenty years personally the principal part,
of my work has been the investigation of the develop-.
ment of patented structures and processes:and the
collection of documentary proof to establish the dates -
‘of conception, and so forth, in courts or in litigation,
3845 patent litigations. I conducted an investigation for
The Texas Company at Port Arthur, Texas, in the
. spring. of 1926, relating ‘to the various stages of
development. of an oil cracking process which The
‘Texas Company referred to as the coil and drum -
3846 clean circulation process.and apparatus. Mr. Dear-
‘. born; patent counsel for Texas, employed me. to ob-
tain if possible all: the documentary proof of the
development of the so-called coil and drum apparatus, |
its construction and operation. Mr. Donald Mace,
who was Mr. Dearborn’s assistant, went over. the -
3847 situation thoroughly with me and gave me a photo-
stat of a blueprint like DX 667, this same appara‘us.
- Mr. Mace instructed me to make a very careful search —
during my investigation for the original tracing
from which the blueprint, of which I had a photostatic
copy, Was taken, to make a careful search for the
tracing. eee :
3848 At Port Arthur I personally made a search of
Otto. Behimer’s files, jhade a search. of the research .
laboratory files, made a search in the files of the
3848 1552, chief engineer, Mr. Elliott’s department,—the —
drafting departinent. Mr.’ Elliott at that time
was chief engineer. ; The search that I made in the
drafting department was for the original tracing.
In the drafting department I searched the drawers
“3849 in the vault where/ all the tracings were kept, espe:
$
.«e
Testimony of John S: McCarthy. =. 1055
: cially where Mr. Elliott thought if the tracing was
. 3850
"9851
in existence it would be. -He_pointed’ out certain
drawers to search. He pointed out the drawers in
the ydrious cabinets to me, miscellaneous drawers and
voided drawers, and places of that kind.
Then we searched what I would call inactive gen- |
eral files that had been stored away on account of
their early use, for instance for the periods 1915 to
1918 or 1919. Those’ are files of all the general de- —
‘partments, all the departments of The Texas .Com-
pany: there at Port Arthur, all these various offices
and departments and every thing.
I did not find the original tracing or drawing at
that time.
Some weeks later, about-the first of May, Mr. Mace
came down to Port Arthur and went over all the.
data that I and Mr. Donaldson had previously _¢ol-
lected, and then Mr. Mace and myself went down’ n to
Behimer’s office and made another search, a very
thorough search, of everything that was in there.
Later. Mr. Mace, Mr. Donaldson and myself went .
over ‘to the engineering department and received
authority from Mr. Elliott to look at every scrap
of paper that was in the files of the drafting depart-
ment, and we spent four days. Personally I handled
practically every: tracing that was in the various files,
including large bundles of tracings, paper and cloth
tracings, that were thrown up on top of the cabinet
'. files. JI took them all down. ' These bundles
1553 had a diameter, perhaps, of 6 or 8 inches, and
we inspected each one of those. I looked ail
through the cabinets, all through the drawers of the
various draftsnien there. We made a thorough search
and went all through them. I did not find the trac-
ing. There were several thousand tracings, maybe
two or three thousand tracings there. |
No cross-examination.
1056 Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
i
555 In rue Unitep States Circuir Court oF APPEALS,
For the Seventh Circuit.
7912. |
Universal Oil Products Company,
a wi,
; ae Equity No. 10744.
“Stone Oil & Refining xy Company,
Defendant-A ppellee. °
CERTIFICATE.
This is to certify that the following consisting of a bound |
volume is a part ‘of the abstract of the record to be printed
by the Clerk in accordance with the stipulation of the par-
ties’ filed and approved by Evan A. Evans, Judge of. the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals, on March 24th,
1942. |
‘Alexander H. Reichmann,
Attorney for ‘Plaintiff-Appellant.
J. Bernhard Thiess,
Attorney for De fe ndant- Appellee.
1560 HOWARD V. SMITH, Westfield, New Jersey:
3044 ae Direct Examination by Mr. Von Holst.
3045’ I ama graduate of the University of Kansas with
a degree of Bachelor of Scienge in chemical engineer-
ing. I have been actively engaged in the business:
of oil refining since January of 1924. I entered the
employ of the Skelly Oil Company in 1924 and was
in the employ of that company at its refinery in El-
dorado, Kansas, until June, 1938, at which time I
resigned to take. the ‘position of chief chemical ‘en-
zineer in charge of research and development for the
Barber Asphalt Corporation at Barber, New Jersey,
the position I now hold.
During my employment with the Skelly Oil Com-
in, active charge of all the: Processing of the
Testimony of Howard V. Smith. 1057
pany I was assistant superintendent of the refinery
from January, 1927, until I resigned in 1938.
Prior to 1927 I was employed successively as a
chemist, as an operating foreman, and as a develop-
ment engineer in the lant: The Skelly Oil Com-
pany at the time when I joined the organization was
| just putting into operation its first cracking stills. |
3046 These were three, a battery of. three stills of the
type known as the Jenkins cracking still. During
1924 the company also installed and put into. .
1561 operation two units of the Cross cracking
- process. .
In 1925 three additional Jenkins stills were added
to the plant’s cracking facilities.
Jn 1927 we installed a cracking unit of. the high
temperature vapor phase coil and tank cracking type.’
In 1928 we started the erection of two cracking stills
of the W inkler-Koch type and put these into opera-
tion early in 1929.
I failed to mention that in 1927 six additional
Jenkins cracking stills were put into operation.
In 1931 we put into operation a third entre still,
of the Winkler-Koch type.
In 1936 we imstalled.a coil cracking unit of ‘our own
design.
During my employment as a chemist in the labora-
tory of the company I was in intimate contact with
the cracking operations from the standpoint of the
_ + laboratory; that is, the activities of the laboratory ‘
3047 were. very ‘much influenced by the addition of these
new cracking units and working out the problems.
which were occasioned by the installation of these
units.
‘In my work as ‘an operating foreman, I was in
_ charge of the vapor recovery plant and our princi-
‘pal source of gas for the operation of this plant
came from the cracking stills, so that I was‘in inti-
mate contact with the operation of the cracking plant
in connection with my duties there.
In the work as a process engineer, most of my
activities were connected with the development of
; the cracking operations. _.
3047 1562 As assistant superintendent of the plant I was
e
1058 - Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
plant, including the operation of the cracking stills.
They were directly under my control and I was re-
sponsible for their operation.
In my present position with the Barber Asphalt |
Corporation I am naturally in contact with the .op- °
erations ef the cracking plant which the company
operates in its refinéry at. Barber, New Jersey, from
the standpoint of the research and. development work.
3048... The purpose of the development of this 1927 Skelly
vapor phase still was to produce a gasoline of very
high anti-knock value which was. used in preparing
a commercial product which was sold at a premium
‘price in competition with the premium price Ethyl
~ gasoline being.marketed at that time by the Stand-
. ard Oil Company of Indiana in Skelly’s marketing
. territory. | - oe:
(. Will you briefly deseribe the cracking process
and its importance and what we practice it for?
A. Cracking is a word which has.a special -sig-
nificance in the oil refining. industry. Petroleum is
it comes from the ground is composed of a large .
number of hydrocarbons, each ene of which has its —
own particular properties such as boiling point,
freezing point, color, refractive index, and so forth.
In commercial refining of petroleum with a few ex-
ceptions we do not attempt to separate out the in-
vidiual hydrocarbons but rather separate out a frac-
tion or cut of the petroleum which has proper-
1563 ties which meet particular commercial require-
. ments. That is, for example, gasoline is made
3049 up of the hydrocarbons which boil through a range
_of from about atmospheric temperature to approxi-
mately 400 degrees. Kerosene is made up of a group
of hydrocarbons boiling in a range of approximately
390 to 550 degrees: Furnace oils used for domestic
heating purposes, are somewhat higher — boiling:
ranges. Gas oils are of still higher boiling ranges, —
_and so on, these various fractions are separated out
' from the crude oil. ; , .
Commercial demands for the different fractions con-
trol the price at which these fractions’ can be sold.
In the days ‘when kerosene was the priacipal product
from petroleum, it commanded a higher price. With
the coming of the automobile and_its use in large
Testimony of ‘Soul V. Smith. 1059
: numbers, a demand for gasoline motor fuel developed
3050
which had the effect of raising the price for gasoline.
This higher price for gasoline is a natural develop-
ment, of course, because the amount of gasoline nat-
urally occurring in petroleum is limited by the char-
acteristics of the particular crude oil. And as the
demand for gasoline in excess of its availabilit;: de-
velops, it naturally tends fo raise ‘the price above
the other fractions of petroleum-— ——*
With higher prices for gasoline it naturally ‘be-
comes desirable for the refiner to put as much of.
his. petroleum into gasoline fractions as che can.
_This led to the development of commercial cracking .
for making gasoline because the cracking operation
3050
enables the refiner to put more of his crude
1564 oil into the gasoline which commands a higher
price. . :
Now the cracking operation itself is a chemical
process in that it chemically alters the heavier con-
stituents of the petroleum so that some part of those
constituents become materials boiling within the
gasoline range,-and hence may be used in the gaso-
line. This chemical reactionsis brought about by the
application of a high temperature: to these heavier
_ fractions for a period of time, and the chemical re-
action: which -takes place breaks up some of the
heavier molecules,-the larger molecules, into smaller
molecules whieh then are available for. use as gaso-
line.
Q. What is the significance of the term ‘‘crack-
ing’’? |
A.- Well, cracking is a word which ‘developed. a.
great many vears ago. As-I understand it, it orig
inated back in the days when kerosene was the pri-
mary product desired ‘from petroleum. It was found -
in those days that the yield’ of kerosene could be
increased by conducting the distillation of the crude
oil at a slower rate during the time when the kero-
sene. was coming Off. In this operation, carried on
slowly, some of the vapors would-be condensed and
dropped back into the still and there subjected to
-additional_time_at the temnerature at-which the dis-:
tillation was carried on. The dropping back of these
condensed vapors entailed an agitation or noise
in the still which was sort of a popping or frving
1060 dbatrast of Testimony on Merits.
noise - siuilar to that which we get oten wales or a *
small. amount or drops of water are dropped
3051 1565 into hot fat. This was provably due to the
. presence of a small amount of moisture which —
- might condense in some parts of the —— :
drop back with the ¢ condensed vapors. But this type of
___-+-distiHation came ‘to be known as a cracking distilla-
tion because of this cracking or popping noise. °
Whether or not that-is the true origin of the word
_ eracking, “nevertheless that word is descriptive of
3052 the cracking operation because in this cracking’oper- -
‘ . .ation by the application of high temperature for a
period of time we do crack or break the large mole-
cules into smaller ‘fractions. Cracking may take
place at very slow rates at relatively low tempera-
tures, but for commercial considerations we. gener-
ally say that cracking begins as a temperature of
about 700 degrees. |
| Q:. Will vou explain a little more in detail the
. . time factor in cracking?
A. Cracking being a chemical aciilieis it is not
brought about by .the application of temperature
_ alone. Temperature must be applied for a period .of
time in-order to bring about substantial cracking. ©
We might make an analegy to this in the operation .
of baking a loaf of bread. We do not create .a loaf
of. bread out of raised dough simply. by heating the
dough to a baking temperature, we have to put. the
dough in the oven and heat it up and then keep it °
there for a period of time in order to make a finished
loaf of bread. Likewise,.another example would be,
2054 boiling a potato. We cannot create a boiled potato
simply by heating the potato to a boiling tem-
3053 1566 perature. We have to heat it to-a boiling tem-
perature and then boil it for a period of time,
_in order to produce a boiled potato. In- the ‘same
way, cracking ‘is accomplished by applying a crack-
- ing temperature to the oil for a period of time and,
-of course, the longer we apply any particular crack-
ing temperature to a particular oil the more cracking
~ we get.
. Q What relation is there between temperature
and time in oil eracking?
A. Well there is a rather definite relationship
hetween temperature and time, in. this way, that the
———
Fectencny of Howard V. Smith. — 1061
higher or greater the temperature used the faster
the rate at which cracking progresses. For example, |
assume a particular oil-which might crack, we will
__- say, at the rate of one per cent an hour. That i is, one
per cent an hour at 710 degrees, we will say. By
that we mean that if the oil is subjected to a tem- —
perature of 710 uegrees for a period of an hour,
one per cent of it would be converted into gasoline.
3054 If we subjected it to that temperature for two hours
3054
~ $055.
we would -have two per cent of gasoline. If we
raised the temperature, say, to 730 deg~ees then we.
would find that the cracking’ progresses twice as-
fast. In other words, we. would get two per cent
gasoline formed in that period. of. an hour or. we °
a get one per -cent gasoline formed in a half
hour. Another raise of approximately 20 degrees,
say to 7450 degrees, would again double the rate at
which the oil cracked and we would find that we -
/ would get one per cent of. gasoline produced
1567/i in a quarter. of ‘an hour, or we would get four
r cent of gasoline in .an hour. These facts
have led to what has ‘become known as the doubling
rule which states that the rate of cracking doubles
for an increase in temperature of approximately 20 |
degrees Fahrenheit.
Pressure seems to have very little effect upon the
cracking reaction itself becanse the oil will crack at
a particular rate at a particular temperature regard-
less of the pressure. Pressure does have some col-
lateral effect however in an oil cracking operation.
‘Pressure serves different purposes in cracking -
operations, depending upon the type of cracking
operation being carried out. If the operation is one |
-in- which it is desired to crack the oil in the liquid
‘state then pressure is used to hold the oil in a liquid
state at the temperature .at which it is desired to
crack. That is, a particular oil has a range of tem-
perature at which it boils at atmospheric pressure.
That particular oil which it is desired to crack may
boil or vaporize. at a temperature below a tempera-
ture at which it would crack at a useful rate. Now
by the application of pressure to that oil we raise the
temperature at which it vaporizes and by: the appli-
cation of enough pressure we may raise its vaporiz-
ing eo to a temperature where it will crack
3056
—
Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
at a desired active rate in the. liquid state: If the
desire in the cracking operations is to crack the oil
in the vapor state or in the inixed liquid and vapor
state irrespective of its condition, then pres-
1568 sure serves the purpose of squeezing a given
_ quantity of vapors into a smaller space so.
that with a particular apparatus we may have a
’ larger amount .of oil under treatment’ and under-
going cracking at-a higher. pressure than we would
have at a lower pressure, and it thereby increases
the capacity of that particular piece of apparatus.
Cracking is essentially .a breaking of larger mole-
cules into smaller molecules. In that reaction in-
variably we find that some of the fragments or smaller
- molecules are so small that they are not condensable
3057.
at ordinary atmospheric temperatures and pressures,
and they-are the fixed: gas which is produced in the
cracking operation. 7
Others of the molecules formed by the cracking re-
action are large enough in size so that they come
within the gasoline range.
Now the cracking reaction is not simply a breaking
up of larger into smaller molecules because some of
these smaller molecules or fragments which are
formed in the‘initial break are very reactive and they
unite with each other to form larger molecules again
in turn. These larger molecules formed in. this way
may again break up in the same way and. parts of
them may again recombine. And this‘ breaking up
-and recombining operation may. take place in the
_myriad forms and varieties of: reactions, but the
3057
ultimate result of that in so far as the products
formed in the cracking are concerned, is that we
find developed in the cracked oil some materials
1569 of higher molecular weight: or higher boiling
point.than the materials with which we started.
These materials which-are fomnued by this uniting
and breaking up and reuniting reaction which we
classify, the uniting reaction, as polymerization re-
action,—these materials in general are richer in
- earbon and leaner in. hydrogen than -the materials
with which we started.. These polymers, if the re-
action is allowed to progress far enongh, become so
carbonaceous, so lean in hydrogen that they evidence
themselves by a darkening or blackening in color of |
3058"
Testimony of Howar Vv. Smith. 1063
the material, and if it is carried on long enough
they become so carbonaceous that they become less
' _ soluble in the remaining part of the oil and finally .
they may actually become insoluble in which condi-
tion they will separate out and attach themselves te
any surface with which they come in contact. Wien
they do that we have the development of these cokey
' and earbonaceous masses which may be dev eloped
3059
» 3059
in these cracking processes. Short of that point
the materials are: in the form of so-called tars or
asphaltenes.
In the breaking down of. the larger into the smaller
molecules, it is not now believed‘that the recombining’
‘into eoke to ‘which I have referred, occurs instan- .
tanvously. ‘The coke formation is the end result of
this series or chain of reactions, breaking. apart,
reuniting, breaking: and reuniting, and so on, so that
we may have a considerable amount of cracking take -
place before we -arrive at the point of carbon or
coke formation.
1570 ~=This was not always the belief, to’ my knowl-
edge. The belief some years ago was prevalent
that when the large molecules broke in.the cracking
reaction that an atom or atoms of carbon were formed
as part of the fragments. produced in that breaking
operation; and these carbon fragments’ were re-.
sponsible for the coke formation. The initial crack-
ing, of course, it was believed nroduced these i in small,
amounts so that the carbon might remain suspended
in the cracked products and not evidence itself by
“precipitating ont~ until the cracking reaction had
progressed to a considerable degree. But that belief,
3060 .T think, has universally given way to the belief of the
present day that. carbon or coke is formed as the |
result of this chain. of reactions, breaking up, polv-
merization, breaking up and repolymerization.
When I entered the ‘field in 1924, the eracking
field, the belief, as I learned oil cracking at that —
time, was that this carbon formation was the result
of producing carbon fragments in the breaking up
of the larger molecules. ;
Q. Now, in this question of carbon formation, does
that or does it not vary with different stocks?
A. Yes
1064
Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
Q. Wil] you explain how that affects the cracking
operation one may desire te conduct?
* A.. We may apply the cracking operation to a wide
variety of stocks. If we apply the cracking -reaction,
for. example, to a gas oil stock which ‘is a clean
distillate stock,’ the cracking reaction has to pro-
- gress to a considerable extent before this chain
1571 of reactions has progressed far enough to de- ,
-velop a cokey or carbon product. If, on thé
other hand, we start with a dirty stock like a reduced
ernde or residue from a cracking operation, we have
in those stocks materials which are already - pretty -
well along on this path of carbon formation as they
have in them some of these heavy carbonaceous
asphaltine: materials, and they will develop the coke
or carbon with a relativ ely small amount of cracking.
That is, the path which they need to go through be-
fore they reach that carbon or coke condition is a
much shorter path than the path which the clean.
-stock has to follow in reaching that condition.
If vou took a sample of residue from a cracking
’ operation, which had been cracked good and hard,
and looked at it casually in comparison with a sample .
of topped crude or reduced crude, you would notice
that in both instances we. see that the materis! is’
black or brown or at least a very dark color, and
the material which makes these ‘stocks. dark . color
is: the material which, when it is cracked, readily
develops coke or carbon.
The residue from the cracking operation gets its
black color as the result of cracking reaction which .
-. the stock has undergone, and the chain of reactions —
3062
of cracking, polymerization, cracking and polymeriza-.
tion, and so on. The redueed crude or topped. erude \
probably has gone through some sort of a similar \
development in the millions of years which were re\
. quired in its formation in the earth. ,
1572. ‘From the standpoint of carbon deposition in
, the still, in the cracking process, the still would
have no way of discriminating between the two. The
carhon formation depends upon the character of the
stock itself and if we have these heavy asphaltic. car-
‘honaceous materials introduced from or originating -
from the reduced crude, why the still has no way of —
distinguishing netween those and similar materials
- Festimony of Howard V. Smith. 1065
which might be introduced ni a stock which had
been previously cracked.
‘‘Vaporization’’ as used in the oil cracking art’
means: the formation of vapors, that is a change of.
state from liquid or solid to the vapor state.. That
meaning as used in the art is not any different from
the meaning as I am familiar with it in physics and -
chemistry and in the ordinary phenomena. That has
been my understanding of the meaning of vaporiza-. ©
tion ever since it had any meaning to me at all. I
probably first became acquainted with the meaning of
the word in. high school.
Vaporization occurs as tlie result: of the application
of heat to a material. That is, we-must impart heat
to a liquid or-a solid material in order to change it.
.- from the liquid or solid condition to the vapor condi-
3065
3066
tion. - Now that i is true unless we reduce the pressure
= the material, in which casé vaporization may-take
pls ce with a decrease jn temperature of ‘the material.
hi at i is the heat required for vaporization is supplied
by a a seduction in temperature of the material.
heat that is consumed in ‘the vaporization
rocess is called the heat of vaporization or |
1573 cometimes called the latent heat of vaporization. .
That term is used in the oil cracking art. The
word ‘‘vaporization’’ itself is used very extensively
in the oil eracking art.
Evaporation is a word applied to, applied in general
to an operation in which we are concerned with the
material which is left behind after the vaporization
takes place, rather than with the material which
vaporizes. For éxample, we speak of the evapqration .
of maple syrup to create maple sugar. We are not
concerned there with the water which evaporates out
of the syrup but we are concerned with the sugar
which is left behind. We speak of evaporation in con-
nection with the water evaporating out of ponds or
streams. We have no visible evidence of evaporation
taking place except by what happens to the matérial
left behind. We notice the decrease in the amount of
water which is left there. We speak of the evapora-
_ tion of gasoline, for example, which takes place in the
tank in the motor car. Some of the gasoline vaporizes
and is lost. We only notice there the effect upon the
1066
3068
3069
3069
3070
Abstract of Testimony on Merits.
properties of the remaining gasoline, or we notice by
the fact that we have less gasoline in the tank.
Ebullition is generally applied to an operation
where the vaporization takes place at such a rate®hat
we see active formation of bubbles within the material.
Distillation is applied to an operation in which we
-are concerned with the vapors which are produced by
the vaporization; that is, we wisli to recover
1574 thoge or save them in sone way. We apply dis-
tillation to the operation of recovering alcohol
from a fermented. solutien or distillation. where we
wish to recover the distillate roducts in petroleum -
refining. That is, the distillation operation concerns
itself with actually fecovering the materials which
have been vaporized..
The steps present in any’ distillation process are
first of all vaporization, of course, and then ‘the pass- .
ing off of the vapors into some receptacle. The vapors
may be collected in the vapor state, retained in that
way as in the distillation of liquid air, or they may be
condensed back to liquid and recovered in the liquid
state as in the more common distillation operations
such as in petroleum, alcohol and so forth.
Vaporization takes place in the defendant's crack-
‘ing coil in a progressive manner in this'way, that we
have fed into the cracking coil a stream of ‘liquid oil.
That stream of liquid oil is heated and cracked as it
progresses through the coil, and it reaches a point in
the roof tubes where it begins to vaporize. ar
Now when the oil is heated in its progress through
the coil and before vaporization starts, there is some
expansion of the oil due to the increase in tempera-
ture, just, the same principle that causes the steel
rails to expand in the hot sun. But that expansion is
_relatively small. When. vaporization starts, however,
the vapors which are formed necessarily occupy a
_. much larger space than they did while they were
1575 in the liquid condition. They have to.push some-
thing out of the way in order to form. They
‘cannot push. back. against ‘the pump, so they have to
push the material which is ahead of them oa to the
outlet of the coil. And this expansion which takes
place when the oil vaporizes results in pushing the
stream ahead at a constantly faster rate, so that we
have a rather rapid acceleration of the velocity of the
$
Testimony of Howard V. Smith. 1067
san can roecnatinn Soe snd oo o>
tinues ut mainin; ion 1€ CO;
Su ing that we had the of defendant's coil
ca in some manner and the coil fall ef liquid oil, ,
and you applied heat, you would not then get vapori-
zation. If you did not provide some way for the vapor
_ to expand then it-cannot form, of course, and you sim-
3071
2072.
ply
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.